though it occupie the place or a natural part So an Hypocrite or one that continueth not to the end possesseth only a rome in the visible Church is not indeed a true member You wil demaund then why we receave Hypocrites among vs wherto I answer we cannot discerne an hypocrite therfor we are to judg of men according to that we see measuring them by the word of God That which is concealed from vs wee are not to prie into VVherfor our judgment must alter chang as occasions varie so the Scripture speaketh of a righteous man forsaking his righteousnes Ezech. 18.24 VVhereas in truth the gifts calling of God are without repentance Rom. 11.29 Breely therfor to deliver vnto you the truth I hold concerning this point 1. The visible Church consisteth of an outward inward communion 2. The inward communion is knowne only to God So are the members therof 3. The outward visible communion is 〈◊〉 discerned by men So are the members thereof 4. VVee aâ—â— to judg men for the present to be both of the inward outward communion if they manifest to vs an ourward 〈◊〉 faith ◠〈◊〉 afterward men Apostate finaly then wee chandg our mynd say they were â—ever of vs for had they been of vs they would have continued with vs. Now Mr. Bern. I pray you answer vs this which wee thus justifie out of the word if you can if you cannot yeeld to the truth embrace the faith wee shal rejoyce 〈◊〉 you with you Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the sixth Section Mr. Bern. in his book intitâ—led the Seperatists Schisme pa. 83. hath these wordes viz Their fifth error is that only Saynts that is a people forsaking al knowne sin of which they may be convinced doing al the knowne wil of God increasing abiding ever therin are the only matter of a visible Church In this Section Mr. Bern. saith thus It is an error to teach That only Saynts as Mr. Smyth defineth them by 4 properties are the only matter of a visible Church Mr. Ainswortht confutation of Mr. Bern. pag. 174. Saith that he denyeth this position disclaymeth the errors which Mr. Bern. gathereth from them referring him to them that hold it then Mr. Ainsworth sheweth what he holdeth that Saynts by calling are the only matter of a true visible Church yet that many be called few chosen Let the reader consider the exposition that I have given to this position in this section of my lettre then let him give his verdict the exposition is summarily thus much viz that seing the visible Church consisteth of an ontward inward communion they that are only of the outward visible communion as hypocrites are no true members of the visible Church but only in reputation account before men Now I demaund of Maister Bernard againe with what face or good conscience he durst thus â—â—â—se the VVorld to publish this position barely without my expoâ—â—â—ion or not to answer that which I brought for the confirmation thereof but naâ—â—dly to set it downe then only to object against it Herein you bewray to mee a mynd willing to hyde the truth to deceave the VVorld to draw the Lords truth into detestation which whither it be not the quality of a false Prophettâ— I leave to the judgment of the Godly mynded And whither hereby you doe not verefie Christs speech that you come to rob kill to destroy that therfor you are a theef a robber Ioh. 10.1.10 But bicause you are so importunate with your objections reasons let vs heer what they are First you say my description of Saynts is a proper description of the invisible members of Christ Iesus that it excludeth Hypocrites from being true matter of the visible Church I answer two things namely 1. that an Hypocrite may performe al these 4. properties mentioned in the description of Saynts for he may 1 Forsake all knowne sinne 2. doe al the knowne wil of God 3. grow in knowledg grace 4. continue to the end yet be an Hypocrite to the Lord in secâ—eatâ— doe you think Mr. Bernard that all that die thus qualified in the estimation of men are indeed saved with the L I confesse to mee they are vndoubtedly saved but are they so to the Lord make a direct answer to this particular you shal be compelled to see confesse your 〈◊〉 Vâ—â— 2. I answer more properly thus when I define Saynts I must define them not as they are in shew for the present but as they are indeed truth Now truth is so eyther before men or before God before men that is true somtyme which is false before God before God that is true somtyme which is false before men That is true before men which is proved by two or three witnesses Mat. 18.16 He therfor is a Saynt before men in truth that continueth to the end in faith repentance the fruites thereof He is a Saynt before men in â—hew appearance for the present that for the present bringeth forth fruites worthy amendement of life For a righteous man may forsake his righteousnes Ezech. 18.14 I am not therefore to define a Saynt as he is in shew for the present but as he is indeed for ever in the judgment of men neither do I define a Saynt as he is in the Lords knowledg which is not revealed to men but as he is revealed to be judged by the word of God I wil declare this by instances for your further information satisfactioÌ„ Stephen Damas Tertullus Stephen continued to the end Demas embraced the world fel back from the truth Tertullus never came to the truth for ought that is revealed I say Stephen was a true member of the visible Church who continued to the end Demas was no Saynt nor no true member of the visible Church indeed but only in shew Tertullus was no Saynt nor true member of the visible church so much as in shew or appearance what Tertullus was in secreat to the Lord I dispute not nor regard not what Demas was what Stephen was in the Lords counsel it doth not aperteyne vnto vs we must judg according to that we see know I say still with the Apostle continuance is a true propertie of a Saynt member of the visible Church indeed truth of the ful compleat communion thereof 1. Ioh. 2.19 Your second Objection reason is that by this my definition of Saynts or the matter of the visible Church so determined I exclude the members of the visible Church of the old Testament as Hezechiah David Ichosaphat Moses c. VVho committed suffered knowne sinne yea the Corinthians 2. Cor. 12.21 Also the Churches of Asia Revel 2 20.21 VVho did not amend yet were Saynts true matter of the visible Church I answer First to that of the old Testament objected by you I say your
ber pag. 81. First he saith the Scripture never setteth forth any of Gods people by this marke say you so Mr. Bern is not the Scripture plentiful in declaring vnto vs that the L. addeth dayly to the Church such as should be saved Act. 2.47 that they that gladly receaved the word were baptized added to the Church continued therin Act. 2.14.42 doth not the Apostle teach that ther is one faith one body one baptisme one Lord but one Eph. 4. And that they that are not of this faith body baptisme Lord are without the faith without the body that is the Church without the true baptisme without this true Lord King Iesus Christ so are none of Gods people visible none of Christs Kingdome none of Christs body none of his faith baptisme Are not true faith prayer baptisme the Lords Supper the true church plaine pregnant do monstrative proper adjuncts of Gods visible people how can you with any face of truth or a good conscieÌ„ce of your judgment knowledg say that to be of a true visible church is no note of Gods visible people out you say further that he synneth which doth not live in a true coÌ„stituted Church ordinarily when he can hath meanes offered nay we say further then so that he synneth that doth not seek meanes to live in a true constituted Church not only he that vseth not meanes offered so to doe wherfor we say that which you say more also but I pray you what meaneth your ordinarily living in a true constituted church doe you hold that ther are two sorts of meÌ„bers conversers in the true church some ordinary some occasional or extraordinary do you think that to be of a true chuch to live in a true church are one thing we say that members of true churches are al ordinary of one kind consideration further we say that it is one thing to be of a true church or a member of a true church another thing to live in the true church a man may be a member of a true church potentialy actualy as I have already declared in the 4. former particulars but al this is nothing to that which I affirme for I say thus that he which is not of a true visible Church is no subject of Chr. Kingdom that is he is not vnder the visible dominion Lordship of Chr. in his church which is his Kingdom I do not say that he is invisiblie none of the L. people for a man may be one of the L. people in election grace invisiblie yet not in the true visible church which is Chr. visible Kingdom againe take an instance to exemplifie the mater al we that are of the seperated churches in these contryes are of the common wealth of England therfor subiects of the King of England our Soveraigne Lord on earth though we are not actually vnder the execution of his lawes courts officers by reason of banishment that we may submit to Chr. ordinance c. So a true seperated Christian is a subject of Chr. visible politie Kingdom which is his church eyther actually or potentially although by banishment that is by vndeserved communication by imprissonmeÌ„t by other occasions he be actualy absented seperated from the presence therof wherfor Mr. Bern. I doe in this section indite you before the L. the world as one that of purpose so maliciousty perverteth my meaning slaundereth this excellent truth of God doth not your conscieÌ„ce tel you may you not read it in the copy of my lettre that I distingnish betwixt Gods people which are of two sortes visible subjects of Ch. visible church which is his Kingd invisible ones known only to the L. certaynly particularly further this doctryn of myne you say is contrary to 4 places of Scripture pa. 81. the first place is Gal. 3.7.9 the Apostles wordes are these They which are of saith are the children of AbrahaÌ„ vs 7. they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham which scripture proveth my doctryne or rather the L. truth I say that faith heer is oposed to the works of the law that faith signifieth a visible faith For the Apostle Iames saith Iam. 3 21-24 Speaking of the same matter viz of Abrahams faith that it was made perfect by works for if Abrahams faith had not been manifested by his workes it had been invisible it would not have been discerned by maÌ„ therfor in the same place vs 14. the Ap. speaketh directly of a visible faith this place of the Ap. therfor confirmeth my assertioÌ„ plainly that they that are not of a true constituted Church are no subjects of Chr. Kingd bicause they do not by their workes shew their faith _____ but if they have faith they have it with God not with man who can judg only by the fruites The second place is 1. Ioh. 3.14 where the Apostle speaketh thus VVee know we are traÌ„slated from death to life bicause we love the brethren VVho are the brethren are not they that cal God Father who can cal God Father but they that have Christ for their Lord Mr. for their Elder brother To whome is Christ Lord Mr. but to them that are subjects of his Kingdome So that this place also maketh most evidently for the confirmation of this truth of God which I defend But you Mr. Bern. dreame of am visible faith of an invisible Kingdome of an invisible brotherhood or consanguinity whereas Christ saith directely that they which doe the wil of God are his brethren of his Fraternity Marc. 3.35 what have we to do with things invisible hidden secreat Deut. 29.29 I avouch that you cannot prove to me by any rule of Gods word certaynly that those that are not members of a true constituted Church are subjects of Christs Kingdome invisible as you I am sure intend it Further what is the love of the brethren wherof the Apostle speaketh is it not a visible love testified in the performance of the visible â—utyes of love Christ faith Ioh. 14.25 if ye love me keep my commaundements obedience is the true touchstone of the love of God 1. Ioh. 3.17 whosoever hath this worlds good seeth his brother need chutteth vp his compassion from him how dwelleth the love of God in him So the visible dutyes of brotherly love are the true touchstone of brotherly love but the principal visible dutyes of brotherly love are the dutyes of admonition consolation supportation patience 1. Thes 5.14 Exhortation edification vs. 11. among theÌ„ admonition is most excellent Mat. 18 15-17 compared with Levit. 19.17 they therfor that altogether omit these visible dutyes of admonition in the degrees thereof injoyned by Christ the Apostles how can they be said to love the brethren but al they that live out of a true constituted Church wholy omit the visible dutyes
vs moraly Spiritually Now I doe confesse vnto you that by ther typical Church ministery worship government Spiritual things were signified both for them for vs For them the morality or Spiritual signification was double viz 1. that the Lord required that they should be that indeed which was typed vnto them els they could not be accepted 2. That in them they ought to see as in a glasse the glorious condition of the Church ministerie worship government of the new Testament which were shadowed out by those ceremonies For vs the moral or Spiritual signification is that except we be correspondent in our constitution ministerie worship Government to those types of the old Testament our constitution ministerie worship government is either jewish or paganish therfor Antichristian Herevppon thus may I reason against you most soundly therin you Mr. Bern. shal have your mouth so stopped as that you shal never be able to reply or once to mutter against the truth any more except you have a cauterized conscience viz. If in the Old Testament ther visible typical communion was typically polluted by typical ceremonial vncleannes vncleansed Then in the New Testament our Spiritual visible communion is really poluted by moral vncleanenes vncleansed that is sinne vnrepented of But in the old Testament ther visible typical coÌ„munion was typicaly poluted by the typical ceremonial vncleanes vncleansed Therfor in the new testament our visible Spiritual coÌ„munion is realy poluted by moral vncleanes vncleansed that is sinne vnrepented of The major cannot be denyed for it is a just analogie proportion from the type to the truth from the shadow to the substance The minor is evidently confirmed by these places of Scripture compared together Nomb. 19.13.20 Hag. 2.14 Act. 21.28.29 Againe If in the old Testament the persons ceremonialy vncleane during the tyme of their vncleanes we excluded from the tabernacle or the host of Israel then in the new Testament persons morally vncleane by impenitency during the tyme of ther impenitency must be excluded from the communion and fellowship of the true visible Church But in the old Testament persons ceremonialy vncleane during the tyme of their vncleanes were excluded from the tabernacle or host of Israel as may be seen Nomb. 5 2-4 12.14.15 2. Chron. 26.21 Terfor in the New Testament persons morally vncleane by impenitency during the tyme of ther impenitency must be excluded from the communion of the true visible Church But I shal have better occasion hereafter namely in the 8. Section to manifest this particular whither I referre the reader Breeflie I answer concerning David his suffering of loabs murther The Kings of Iudah suffering the brasen Serpent to be worshipped the high places Moses giving the bill of divoice that eyther they knew them not to be sinne or if they knew theÌ„ that they were polluted therwith by consent but yet ther typical communion was not defiled ther by if they were ceremonialy cleane they therfor being typicaly Saynts were true matter of the typical Church for the Church of Corinth the Churches of Asia I answere that they were not impenitent in sinne so were Saynts For know you that not sinne but impenitency in sinne maketh meÌ„ a false matter of a church making saynts no saynts Now how can you prove that either the Corinthians or the Churches of Asia were impenitent after once twise admonition I think it passeth your skil to prove that therfor I think this second objection of yours to be idle of no value Your third objection reason is that the places of Scripture which we bring declare what men ought to be not what men are you say we cannot conclude from the places of Scripture we bring that bicause men are commaunded so to be therfor if they be not so they are none of Gods people To this objection reason I answer that hereby you confesse that the L. requireth that al the members of the visible Church should be Saynts whence I also conclude that seing they ought so to be therfor if they be not so they are otherwise then they ought to be so by consequent if the Church be framed of those that are not Saynts it is framed of another matter then the Scripture appointeth I would know if that be not a false matter Moreover I avouch flatly contradictory vnto you that if men be not as God commaundeth they are none of his people but you are to know that true repentance is the true tryal of a Saynt or of one of Gods people impenitency is an evident declaration that the partie therwith affected is none of Gods people Therfor you must observe the difference betwixt the commaundements Legal Evangelical The commaundements legal require absolute obedience in the highest degres therof The gospell requireth true vnfeyned repentance in the best degre we can aford I would not have you think that wee imagine men should beframed in obedience absolutely according to the exactnes of the low For wee are not vnder the law no wee only hold that men must in vnfeyned desire endevour yeld obedience to the law repent of al that wherin they are defective this is the obedience of the gospel which is acceptable for wee are vnder grace wherfor Mr. Bern. if you doe conceave that we intend the most perfect obedience of the law as a proper adjunct or formall difference of a Saynt you are very grosse in your apprehension if you conceave that we entend that men should be absolutely according to the gospel in faith repentance or els to be none of Gods people then your conceipt is true fit but your objection is frivolous ridiculous For then men either are so or none of Gods people this doth our places of Scripture which we quote prove for any thing you yet have manifested to the contrary when wee see you manifest otherwise you shal receave answer in the meane tyme you have discovered your self to be but a wrangler Your fourth objection reason is for that Saints in Scripture are not so called 1. eyther for soundnes of knowledg 2. or internal pure affection 3. or holy practise of their duty alwayes But 1. For their outward calling to Christianity 2. For their profession of faith 3. inâ—espect of their baptisme 4. in regard of the better part 5. or in respect of the visible signes of Gods favour 6. Gods good pleasure I answer you thus you deny three things affirme six I doe poremptorily deny your three negatives I constantly affirme that sound knowledg pure affections continual obedience are most pregnant and couvertible properties off true Sanctification Soundnes of knowledg is a proper note of life Eternall Iohn 17.3 Heb. 8.11 so a true note of Sanctification Tit. 1.16 that which you bring of Christs Disciples being ignorant of many things which we acknowledg is
an Aristocraty a Democratie In respect of Christ the King it is a Monarchy of the Eldership an Aristocratie of the brethren joyntly a Democratie or Popular government For Christ the King he ruleth by his owne lawes Officers The body of the Church the spowse of Christ ruleth as the wise vnder the husband according to the wil appointment of her husband The Elders rule as the stewards of Christ the King of the church which is the wise or spowse of the King Now as it is vnreasonable to appoint the steward or Servant of the King either over the King himself or over the Queen who is the Kings wife So is it Antichristian to place the Elders as Rulers over the whole body of the Church although every particular person and cause is subject to be ordered by that authority which the Church joyntly receaved from Christ and delegateth to them wee say therefore that the body of the Church hath all powre immediately from Christ and the Elders have al their powre from the body of the Church which powre of the Eldership is not exercized nor can not be vsed over or against the whole body of the Church for that is an Antichristian vsurpation but only it is exercised over and against particular persons and disorders arising in the Church the Eldership herein dealing for the body in the publique workes thereof breefly therefore to answer in generall to all your nine reasons vsed against popularity wee dispute not whither the Elders must rule or not but wee dispute who have the negative voice in their hands or who have the determining powre in them or who give the definitive sentence in al matters VVee say that the definitive sentence the determining powre the negative voice is in the body of the church not in the Elders yet we say the Elders are to lead governe al persons causes of the Church but to lead governe contrary to the definition voice of the body that we deny that we say is Antichristian Your first reason Mr. Bernard is that popularity is contrary to Gods order vnder the law and before the law vnder the law the powre of Governing was in the Levites befor the law it was in the first borne this governing powre was not receaved from the people vnder the law but from the Lord by Moses but the people only approved the Lords appointment I answer The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did type two things 1. That Priviledg and prerogative which Christ Iesus hath who is the first borne having the preeminence in all things Colos 1.18.1 Cor. 15.20 Revel 1.5 For Christ is the first most noble in the Church even the head Fountayne of al heavenly grace excellency 2. The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did shadow out the church Exod. 4.22.23 who is the first borne of al the men of the earth most deere and pretious to the Lord So that this reason of yours may thus be retorted vppon your selsf If the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the preheminence then Christ the visible Church which were shadowed out by the first borne by the Levites have the preminence powre in the new Testament But the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the powre preheminence by your owne confession Ergo Christ the visible church from Christ shadowed out by the first borne the Levites have the powre preheminence in the new Testament Remember for this particular that the first borne the first Fruites the Preists Levites Rings Princes of Iudah did al type forth vnto vs in the new testamēt the visible church the Saints next vnder Christ who is the head to the body of the Church as these scriptures do manifestly declare 1. Pet. 2.5 9. Revel 1.5 6. Col. 1.18 1. Cor. 15.20 The second of your nine reasons against popularity is that it is without warrant in the Apostles tyme The Apostles alwayes begune continued and composed church matters the body of the congregation were only made acquaynted with matters aliberty granted them to chose officers but they did never make any themselves nor attēpted any thing of themselves This argument Mr. Bern. is partly vntrue partly against your self Vntrue it is thus far forth that you say the body of the congregation never attempted any thing without Elders For I demaund of you what did the 120. persons in the first of the acts did they not chuse an Apostle into office ordeyne him but they had no Elders as yet for the holy Ghost was not come downe vppon them so the◠were no Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers Eph. 4.8.11 did not the Churches of Lystra Iconium Antiochia think you worship God admonish excommunicate during the tyme of the Apostles absence from them when as yet they had no Elders Act. 14 21-23 did not the Churches in Creta think you worship God governe in the absence of the Apostles Titus when as yet Elders were not appointed Tit. 1 5. you cannot deny that the Churches were established before they had officers if you do the Apostle saith that they that are to be chosen Elders must not be newly planted into the faith 1. Tim. 3.6 so by consequent from the tyme of establishing Churches til Election of officers ther must needes be a space of tyme for tryal of mens gifts conversation constancy in the faith during which tyme the Apostles being absent from the Churches I make no doubt but they did worship God performe the other parts of their Spiritual communion it they did so then I say look how many Churches were established by the Apostles So many examples ther are of the congregation attempting every thing almost without Elders so the Second reason of yours conteyneth so many vntruths as ther were Churches planted by the Apostles in the Acts who did not the first day of their planting institute their Elderships but some certayne competent space of tyme afterward wherin ther might be sufficient tryal knowledg of mens gifts qualifications fit for office this may suffice for your vntruths Now further your reason is against your self in this particular wherein you yeeld the cause that the body of the congregation had a liberty to chose their officers whence I reason thus against you They that have liberty to chose their owne officers to worship God publiquely before they have officers they have al the rest of Christs powre ministerial befor they have officers But the body of every congregation hath powre to worship God publiquely as you see have liberty to chose their owne officers as you confesse yet want Elders Ergo the body of every congregation hath al the rest of Christs ministerial powre before they have officers I say the body of
also he is to be admoniâ—hed convinced openly if then he repent not to mee he is a Heathen Publicane no Saynt what he is in the L. account to himself in secreat I know not nor regard for it aperteyneth not to me Lastly for the consequence of the argument viz That seing in the Old Testament the faithful were not defiled joyning in prayer preaching praising God with open known sinners therefore wee in the New Testament so doing are not defiled I deny vtterly yea and I deny the Antecedent in some sence also It shall not be vnprofitable therefore fully to discussce both the Antecedent and the consequence of this Objection The Antecedent is thus to be expounded conceaved of namely That the L. required one thing outwardly in the communion of the Church another thing inwardly in the hart for acceptation before God If any circumcized Israelite or proselyte clensed according to the purification of the Sanctuarie did joyne in prayer preaching praising God no man could justly refuse his outward communion in these actions seing he was outwardly cleane according to the dispensation of those tymes For vs in the new Testament ther are required other visible actions for our outward clensing which were not then required of the carnall Israelites for their outward clensing if they did declare their inward repentance by Sacrifices for their sinnes general Speciall by clensing themselves with those rites ceremonies which were appointed by the Lord for those infant tymes of the Church they were to be judged holy by al men so communion might be had with them without sinne but if they were not clensed according to the purification of the Sanctuary they were not visibly cleane therfor communion could not be had with them without sinne so Hezechiahs prayer importeth 2. Chron. 30 18-â—â— the Prophets declare plainly NoÌ„b. 19.31.20 Hag. 2.14 yet heer also cautions must be remembred viz That this ceremoniall vncleanenes must be made known vnto others for otherwise how could it polute others if it were vnknowne to them Furthermore it cannot be denyed but that the Sonnes of Belial very vild wicked men did deale with the holy things in the old Testament but yet I say it cannot be proved but they were visiblie cleane according to the dispensation of those tymes the Lord did not then require men to proceede with their brethren in the thre degrees of admonition so to bring them to the acknowledgment of their sinne repentance That is the Lords dispensation for the new Testament But the L. order for those tymes was 1. reproof for sinne Levit. 19.17 2. The partie reproved was to offer a Sacrifice which if he did he was clensed from hys sinne visiblie Levit. 4.23 3. If he wilfully refused to harken he was to be promoted to the Magistrate put to death for his presumption Levit. 15.30.31 Deut. 17.12 This was the L. aeconomie for those tymes when this order was violated then al communion was defiled whiles it was observed all was wel in the visible communion Let any man declare the contrary if he be able breefly therfor to make a ful answer to the objection if the faithful did keep communion with persons visiblie vncleane according to the vncleanenes of the old Testament knowne vnto them I say they were polluted with their vncleanenes by consenting therto to the violation of the Lords order appointed for those tymes if men were the children of Belial yet were clensed according to the dispensation of the Old Testament their visible clensing did intitle them to the ordinances of the old Testament before men though before God their consciences were impure wherfor both the Antecedent consequent of the argument are weake and vnsound so this truth of God remayneth firme that impenitency in sinne defileth the communion of the visible Church as in the old Testament Your third reason is for that the Prophets did not Seperate who did know the meaning of the L. for this thing nor taught not the people so to do I answer as in the new Testament so in the old ther ought not to be Seperation til the vtmost meanes be sought for redresse of things The vtmost meanes for reforming abuses in the Old Testament was the Magistrates authority in whose hands the powre of reforming was Hence it is that the Prophets alwayes reproove the Kings for the wickednes of the Land but the Lord did never teach bicause he thought it not meet ther being but one true Church that when the King neglected his duty the people should forsake the Holy things of God Seperate but stil they ought to depend vppon the Lord for redresse of things but now in the New Testament the Lords administration in this particular is otherwise 1. Visible Churches may be infinite so ther is a possibility of enjoying the Lords ordiâ—ances though a man forsake the communion of one Church 2. the fulnes of tyme being come the nonage of the Church being past the Lord hath now revealed his whole wil pleasure hath set vs at liberty whereas in the old Testament they were in bondage vnder worldly ordinances 3. The Saints now in the new Testament are answerable to the Kings in the old Testament having powre Ecclesiastical in their hands but not civil to reforme the abuses that arise in the visible Church 4. Therfor we are in the new Tament to vse al meanes appointed by the Lord for reformation before wee Seperate al the meanes I say whatsoever If then ther be no reformation what then I answer Seperation is then lawful why The reasons are these 1. The visible Church cealeth to be a time Church being obstinate in sinne from a false Church Seperation is lawful 2. the Lord hath commaunded to come out â—â—om among persons obstinate in sinne so the Apostles practised 2. Cor. 6.17 Act. 19.9 2.40 3. bicause the Lord hath said that if we pertake with them in their sinnes we shal receave of their plagues 4. bicause if but two or thre faithful ones being Seperated joyne together they are a true Church vnto Christ where the Lords presence acceptance is But in the Old Testament they were necessarily tyed to the Kingdome Preisthood Temple for the worship obedience of God but now in the New Testament al things are free the bondage is gone Mr. Bern. I would have you note this wel lay it vp in your hart for your instruction reformation for in this particular I know you al that feare God in the land are scandalized from the truth not vnderstanding the difference between the New Testament the ordinances thereof the Old Testament with the ordinances thereof Summarily therefor to deliver the truth The Church Ministery VVorship Government of the Old Testament were so constituted by the Lord as that no Seperation could be made from them seing they were al by Succession
discerne a true serpent from a â—alfe yet bicause new adversaries arise dayly with new shifts cavils therfor it is not amisse to discover their forgeries also that at the length it may evidently appeare that the truth hath devoured error as Moses Serpent did the Enchanters So desiring every one that loveth the Lord the truth especiaâ—ly Mr. Ainsworth Mr. Bernard to judg wisely of my course not to take any thing in the evil part which is a strong fruite of the flesh I cease wishing the truth may be honoured though men be shamed Amen IOHN SMYTH A LETTRE WRITTEN TO MAISTER Ric. Bâ—â—nard Minister off worksop by Ioh. Smith Pastor off the Church at Ganesburgh The First Section MAister Bernard I have sufficient reasons that have moved mee to breake silence in respect of you by this Lettre to attempt a further tryall of your pretended Zeale for the truth faith of Christ I have long tyme observed the applause yeelded you by the multitude Likewise I have taken notice of your forwardnes in leading to a Reformation by publique proclamations in Severall pulpits out of that Text off Daniell 3.16.17.18 As if you had meant contrary to the Kings mynd to have caryed all the people in the country after you against the Ceremonies Subscription afterward having lost your vicaridge of worksop for refusing Subscription or conformity I have observed how yow revolted back vppon Subscription made to the Prelate of york have reentred vppon your said vicaridg Againe I have noted your vehement desire to the parsonage of Sawenbâ—e your extreme indignation when you were defeated of it Further your earnest desire to have been vicar of Ganesburgh al this after your subscription besides I have carefully weighed with my self your Readines to embrace this truth wee professe First at Sr. VV. Bowes his howse when it was opposed by some adversaries after that your acknowledging of it before many witnesses at one tyme before one or two witnesses at divers tymes aledging Naamans speech for your continuance in your Ministerie 2. King 5.18 as if therby you meant to reserve libertie to sinne against your conscience And now of late I have considered your covenant made with one hundreth people a thing of such note observation as that the whole country ringeth of it but alas againe you have revolted from al this tâ—uth only excepting your opposition against the dumb ministers have not only rejected it but set your self against it hinder divers from it both in your putpits writings proclame against it as error schisme yea beginne to justifie all the corruptions of the ministerie worship government of the assemblies all this with a high hand Al these things many more I have noted in you all the forward professers yea the verie ennemies also have observed the same In al which particulars two things may be mynded your inconstancy apostacy misconstre not the word for how can I judg it otherwise seing you have acknowledged the truth now reject it oppose it your inconstancy in falling of on so often as you have done now allthough these general reasons might have moved any of the Prophets Teachers of our Church for the truths sake to have delt with you to have discovered you to the simpler sort whome you seduce yet I have attempted it vppon two private groundes wherein I am especially interessed to this busines one is certayne aspersions by you personally cast vppon mee Another is certayne particular oppositions directed against some of my writings For the First you may remember that at Broxtow when you returned from Mr. Hildersham before certaine competent witnesses you vttered wordes tending to this purpose that in defence of the truth wee professe I chose out asitt adversary viz Mr. Rich Clifton to deale withall a man that could not dive into the depth of my arguments that I refused to deale with you in that respect This speech savoreth verie strongly of pride which vice take you heed of especialy it conteyneth also an vntruth manifesteth contempt against a man of better hability then your self in the judgment of them that know you both besides the wrong that you doe mee as if I knowing the cause wee testife to be weake bad durst not adventure it to the trial of your sufficiency diving wit but in good earnest Mr. Bernard tel mee is your dealing vpright in this point Doe not you remember that you have in your handes had in your handes at that instant when you vttered those wordes my answer writteÌ„ in one Columne to certayne doubts objections you made written in another Columne which I desired you to answer wherto as yet I have receaved no answer from you Surely you may pretend holines zeale for the truth but this dealing these speeches declare no such matter yea rather they do manifest the corruptioÌ„ of your hart This your speech dealing is one reason that moveth mee in Special to deale with you that your mouth may be stopped in that behalf although it be stopped already sith you answer not my writing that is in your handes for Mr. Richard Clifton I assure my self as you shal find shortly to your litle credit he wil approve his sufficieÌ„cy to be Superior to your diving witt A Second reason that in particular leadeth me to medle with you in this matter is your oppositions against some truths which I have expressed in some of my writings Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the first Section The place of Daniel mentioned in the beginning of this Section is Dan. 3.16 O Nebuchadnezzar wee are not careful to answere thee in this matter 17. Behold our God whome wee serve is able to deliver vs froÌ„ the hote fiery fornace he will deliver vs out of thyne hand o King 18. But if not be it knowne to thee o King that we wil not serve thy Gods nor worship the golden jmage which thou hast set vp This place of Scripture Mr. Berâ—aâ—â— handled oft tymes in several places in so much as every man conceaved that he would have been a ring leader to reformation For the circumstances being considered that this Scripture was handled when the King vrged Subscription conformity throughout the whole land when divers of the forwardest preachers were silenced himself then endaungered to leese his vicâ—â—ridg that then he should thus p each was enough to have brought him within the compasse of petty-rebellion in stirring vp the myndes of the people against the Kings proceedings besides the shew of the text might aford that he compared the King to Nebuchadnezzar Subscription to the Kings commaundement of worshipping the golden jmage Refusal of Subscription to the Refusal of worshipping the golden jmage the parts of Subscription to the golden jmage the Ministers refusing Subscription to the three persons that refused to worship the golden image their
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
al false Churches the members of them are without Ther is one only faith truth Eph. 4.5 as in the Old Testament so in the New the true church ministerie worship government is but of one kind al the Churches or assemblies of the Edomites Ammonites Moabites Ishmaelites Israelites Samaritanes the rest were false churches hada false ministery false worship false government only the Iewes had the true Church Ministerie VVorship Government with them So in the New Testament al Churches or assemblies of men whatsoever professing Christ as Abbayes Monasteries Nunries Colleges Cathedrals Seminaries Rectories Parishes c. not Seperated from the Antichristians worldlings are false Churches so without only the Seperated Churches are the true Churches are within you should have answered this Section of my lettre Mr. Bern. before you had printed your book if you had dealt ingeniously plainly but seing you caÌ„not answer for I take it so bicause you doe not answer for your book declared that ther is no wil wanting let vs see what you object your objections are three First the two places of Scripture 1. Cor. 5.12 Eph. 2.12 you say are ment of such as never made so much as an outward profession of Christ Iesus at al your argument is this No Scriptures directed against pagans can truly be applyed against Antichristians These places are directed against pagans vic Eph. 2.12 1. Cor. 5.12 Ergo these places cannot be truly applyed against Antichristians I deny your Major Mr. Bern. you have not proved it at al Let the reader judg whither your speeches be oracles that they must be believed bicause you vtter them but herin your fraud and evil conscience or palpable ignorance appeareth that you leave out your Major which you should have confirmed propound only your minor For that these places are vnderstood of Pagans I deny not but that they are only to be vnderstood of pagâ—â—â— that they â—â—nnot be vnderstood of Antichristians I deny 〈◊〉 I prove the â—â—ntrary evidently to your conscience the conscience of al men after this manner That which the L. hath taught vs to doe we may lawfully doe But the Lord hath taught vs to apply against Antichristians places of Scripture directed against pagans Ergo places of Scripture directed against pagaÌ„s may by vs be applyed against Antichristians The Major is evident The minor is proved by the consideration of these Scriptures â—evel 11. â— 18.2.7.21 where the holy ghost applyeth against the Antichristians matters Scriptures spoken literally of Sodom Egipt Babylon which were all pagans Agâ—â—â—â— If Antichristians be in condition eyther equal to or worse then pagans theÌ„ by proportion Scriptures directed against pagans may be applyed against Antichristians But Antichristians in the Lords account are in a condition equall you worse then pagans For so Christ saith Mat. 11.22 that it shal be easier for Tyrus Sidon the Sodomites then for Chorazin Bethsaida Capernaum Ezech. 16 44-52 Iudah Sodom Samaria are sisters in sinne punishment Iudah hath justified Sodom Therfor Scriptures directed against pagans may be applyed by proportion eyther of equality or superiority against Antichristians Now for your further instruction in this point Mr. Bern. consider that in the new Testament the phrases speeches titles priviledges benefites of the Church of the Iewes considered as the true Church are ordinarily applyed to the visible Church of Christ in the new Testament contrariwise the phrases speeches titles priviledges judgments pronounced agaist the Gentils in the old Testament are customabley applyed against the false Churches Antichristians in the new Testament Hence it is that the true visible Church of the new Testament is called the holy Cittie Temple Tabernacle the new Ierusalem the like the false Church is called the Gentils Egipt Sodom Babylon c. the reason whereof is bicause that the Church of the Iewes was a type of the Churches of the new Tastament so the assemblies of the Gentils were types of the false Churches of Antichrist as you may see through the whole book of the revelation in divers particulars which point if you had eyther vnderstood or attended you could not thus frivolously have objected to vs this one particular that speeches vnderstood of pagans may not be applyed against Antichristians I pray you what vse do you make of the prophesies of the old Testament against Nineveh Babylon Elam Madai the rest VVhat vse can you make of the judgments threatned inflicted vppon the GeÌ„tils if not this that Christ the Apostles make Mat. 11.22.24 12.41.42 2. Pet. 2 5-7.15 Iude. 7.11 Heer I know you will say that you are not Antichristians so though these places may be applyed against Antichristians yet not against you that particular wee will see afterward in his proper place in the meane tyme thus much we have gayned that places af Scripture directed against pagans may as wel be applyed against Antichristians as places of Scriptrue spoken to the true Church of the Iewes may be applyed to the true Church of the new Testament Secondly you object that wee cannot prove laying aside the forgeâ—â—s of our owne braynes that this scripture phrase without may be applied vnto you as to a people without VVell wee wil lay aside our owne devices so let vs trye what wee can doe Arg. 1. Churches that are in condition equal or worse then assemblies of pagans are without Revel 11.2 Antichristian Churches are in condition equal or worse then assemblies of pagans Ergo Antichristian Churches are without Againe 2. False Churches are without Antichristian Churches are false Churches Ergo Antichristian Churches are without Againe 3. Dogs Enchanters VVhoremongers Murtherers Idolaters they that love or make lyes are without Revel 22.15 Antichristian Churches are assemblies of such persons Ergo Antichristian Churches are without Againe 4. The habitation of Devils the hould of al foule Spirits cages of every vncleane hateful byrd are without Antichristian Churches or Babylon are such Reuel 18.2 Ergo Antichristian Churches are without Againe 5. The vtter court which must not be measured by the goldeÌ„ reed but which is given to the Gentils that persecute the Holy Cittie is without Antichristian Churches are that vtter court Revel 11.1.2 Ergo Antichristian Churches are without Againe 6. The Serpent his seed or aungels are without Revel 12.9.10 Gen. 3.15 Antichristian Churches are the Serpent his seed aungels Ergo Antichristian Churches are without Now Mr. Bern. I have proved by playne Scripture that Antichristian assemblies are without I know you wil not denye it but you wil plead that your Churches are not Antichristian assemblies therfor you account that one of our errors pag. 109. viz our 8. error as you summe theÌ„ that position therfor viz your Churches are false Churches shal be proved vnto you fully in the Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the 10.
section of this lettre whither I referre the reader desiring him for his information satisfaction in that particular to read that Section before he proceed any further in reading lest it should be thought that I deceave shift of thys mayne point which is indeed the cheef most principal of our cause Seperation The third thing that you object is that God Almightie hath witnessed that you are his people by giving you his word Sacraments by effectual conversion by his strange miraculous delivering you these things Mr. Ainsworth hath answered most fully hath stopt your mouth for ever that you shal never be able to mutter any more in this matter therfor I wil spare my paynes Neverthelesse I advertise you of one thing that we do acknowledg that the Lord hath his peâ—ple among you whome he calleth to come out from among you to be Seperated to touch none of your vncleames 2. Cor. 6.17 Saying vnto the faithfull that are among you Goe out of Babylon my people that ye be not partaker of her sinnes that ye receave not of her plagues Revel 18.4 that they may be the better perswaded to come out from you to be Seperated the Lord threatneth a woe a fearfull woe to them that worship the beast or his jmage or that receave his mark in their forehead or right hand Revel 14.9 al this the Lord performeth by our testimony Yet neverthelesse we say that your assemblies Ecclesiastical are false Churches that they are Babylon Epipt Sodom where Lot the Lords people are kept captives by reason of the presence of Gods people with you therfor it is that you have those many deliveraÌ„ces which you have even as the Lord gave Paul the lives of al that Sayled with him in the Ship Act. 27.24 whereas you plead you have the word Sacraments conversion I say it is but as the theef hath the true mans purse as the false Church of Ieroboam had as the Samaritanes the Edomitts Moabites Ammonites Ishmaelites had circumcision the Sacrifices by vsurpation which by continuance of tyme were at the last worne out among them even so you see Mr. Bern. that Gods people the sincerest preaching by the forwardest among you the conscionable practise of the truth by the best professors the reformation which the reformists so long have sought is almost expired out of date in the Land The Prelates Subscription Conformity Declining to Popery a Linsy wolsey Religion prevayleth in the Land you your selfe among the rest have lost or forsaken your sincerity are become a Tymeserver a Newter a Temporizer then what els but an Hypocrite except the Lord be mercifull vnto his people among you it is likely to come to passe among you as among the Samaritanes Edomites Moabites Ammonites Ishmaelites that the Holy things of God which by violence vsurpation you have invaded wil be eyther overwhelmed with Egiptian darknes or vtterly banished out of the nation I would fayne know whither even at this present ther be not a thousand parishes in the Land wher ther is no more true profession of Christ then among the Antichristian Papists Finaly to conclude this Parallele whereas you object that wee like it that you call vs brethren but we wil not so account you nor admonish you as brethren I answer that we like it to be counted brethren by you nor for that wee are so vnto you but for that here by wee would judg you out of your owne mouths that whereas you account vs Brownists Schismaticks Heretiques Traytors c. you may hereby perceave your wicked slaunders that thus intitle vs yet account vs your Brethren For otherwise as we detest your Church ministery worship Government as Antichristian So also wee have in abhomination your brotherhood which is Antichristian also wee abjure to be brethren to your Lords the Prelates to your vice Lords the Archdeacons Chancellors Comistaries Officials of their Courts to the damned crew so termed in the Land to your Church Papists to the adulterers Thâ—eves Murtherers VVitches Conjurers Vsurers Atheists Swaggerers Dronkards Blasphemers infinite sorts of sinners impenitent in your Churches yea take the forwardest preachâ—rs professors of the nation wee vtterly dislike their brotherhood visiblie standing members of the assemblies visiblie joyned in communion with the forenamed Antichristians abhominable persons in one the same body nay wee goe further we reject the fraternity of those that deny themselves to be ordinary members of your Churches yeâ— are so extraordinarily that refuse communion with you continually yet reserve liberty to heare communicate occasionally For seing they hereby are made one with 〈◊〉 â—ntichristian body wicked members ther of being vnseperated from them we cannot acknowledg our selves thâ—â—r brethreâ— lâ—â—â— we joyne light darâ—â—es Christ Belial the Temple of God Idols together wherefore neither are we your brethren nor you our brethren visibly neither do wee delight so to be called in these respects but only as you have heard that we may be wel reported of by them that are â—ithout that we may heapeÌ„ coales of fire vppon your head wheÌ„ you acknowledg vs brethren yet slaunder vs so shamefully this shal suffice as concâ—â—ing this Section The fixth Section Your â—leventh position followeth to be considered of which is this That only Saynts as Mr. Smyth defineth them by 4. properties are the matter oâ—ly of a visible Church This you hould error I hold it the most certayne truth of Gods word as these Scriptures doe evidently prove Rom. 6 4.5.8.11-22 1. Pet. 3.11 2. Pet. 3.18 1. Iohn 2.19 Apocal. 3.5 compared with Roman 1.7 Eph. 1.1.4 Revel 11.2 22.14.15 18.2 compared with Deut. 14.2.3.11.2 Cor. 6.16 compared with 1. King 5.12 The 4. properties wherby I describe saynts are these though you mention them not iâ— this your note 1. To forsake all knowne sinne 2. to doe all the will of God knowne 3. to grow in grace 4. to continue to the end For the further cleering of this point consider that al the members of the true visible Church of the Apostolique institution are persons who are to be accounted holy faithful elect now if they be elect I hope they wil continue faithful to the end but you wil happily object that many fal away by Apostacy true then they are fit to be entertayned in your churches as some of ours have been of them I say as the Apostle Iohn saith if they had been of vs they would have continued with vs Therfor they were none of vs For although they were in the outward communion yet they were not of the true visible Church but were only Hipocrites as superfluous excrescences in the body no natural true parts of the body For as in the matural body an eie of glasse is not indeed a true part of the body
bewray therein great ignorance of the true nature constitution of the Church of the Old Testament as also of the ministery worship government thereof which were al typical ceremonial Know you therfor Mr. Bern that ther is as much difference betwixt the Old Testâ—ment with the ordinances thereof the new Testament with the ordinances therof as ther is betwixt the signe the thing signified betwixt the ceremony the substâ—ncâ— the type the tâ—uth the shadow the body Lâ—â—eral Spiritual the lettre the Spirit For in these the like Phrases doth it please the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures tâ— discover vnto vs the differences of these two Testaments the ordinances thereoff you cannot plead bicause in the Old Testament there were Sacrificing Preists therfor tâ—eâ— mâ—st bâ— such in the New Testament neyther can you plead for that they had one high Pâ—eâ—â—t in the Old Testament therfor ther must be one Pope or Patriarch over the â—huâ—ch â—n the Nâ—w Testament To reason thus were to bring in Iudaisme to disanull the blood of Christ Therfor if you wil reason aright as you ought to doe you must â—rame your reason from the Type to the Truth after this manner This was a Type figure â—hadow ceremony signe literal ordinance in the old Testament therefor we must not have that type figure shadow ceremony signe literal ordinance in the new Testament but we must have the thing typed figured shadowed out signified thereby as for example In the old Testament they had a visible Tabernacle Temple Cittie wee must have a visible Church which is indeed the true Tabernacle Heb. 8.2 3 2-6 The true Temple 2 Corinth 6.15 the Holy Cittie Revel 21.2.3 In the Old Testament the materiall Temple was made of material stones in the New Testament the visible Church is made of living Spiritual stones 1. Pet. 2.5 in the old Testament the people that offered sacrifice were a holy people literally Deut. 14.2.3 in the new Testament the people that worship God must be holy indeed spiritualy 1. Pet. 2.5.9 the same may be said or the sacrifices sacrificers or Preists of al other ordinances of the old testameÌ„t hence it foloweth by a necessary consequence that the constitution of the church of the old testament was a ceremonial constitution the worship of the old testament a ceremonial worship the ministery a typical ministery the government a typical government the people a typical people the land or country a ceremonial country so forth of the rest by proportion This being propounded confirmed thus as the vndoubted truth of God discovereth the vanity of your reason I say vnto you that David Iehosaphat the rest of the Godly in the old testament though they did suffer known sin in the land yet were the true matter of the typical Church being typicaly or ceremonialy cleane For to the constitution of the typical Church ther was not required true holynes but ceremonial cleanenes although it was signified vnto them of the old testament necessarily required of them for their aceptation befor God that they should be truly holy sanctified for never was any accepted before God without true inward holines yet it was not necessarily required of them to the constitution of their Church for to make them true matter or members of that typical Church or to fit them to that typical coÌ„munion which was the proper coÌ„munion of that typical Church of that typical service Hence it is that as in the old testament a Saint was a typical Saint so an hipocrite was a typicall hipocrite a wicked man was a typical wicked man therfor excommunication was typical Nomb. 5 2-4 12.14 Hence also it foloweth that lawfully they might have typical communion in typical worship that were typicaly cleane or saynts typicaly though they were wicked indeed For their real wickednes did not polute their ceremonial or typical Church worship communion although it did polute their owne consciences workes Their ceremonial vncleanes did polute their ceremonial communion Their moral vncleanes did not so If their communion had been moral Spiritual then their moral vncleanes had defiled their coÌ„munioÌ„ but their coÌ„munion being only ceremonial typical their polution was only of that kind therfor you shal never find that in the old testament the L. chardgeth theÌ„ for coÌ„munion in their typical service with wicked men howsoever the wicked men theÌ„selves are sharpely reproved for their wickednes Besides the nature of their worship being wel weighed doth instruct vs thus much For their worship was reconciliation repentance to acceptation but our worship is of another nature viz Sacrifices of praise thanksgiving after repentance reconciliation acceptation For they did worship to repentance we do worship from repentance therfor they might did worship therby to reconcile theÌ„selves to God we being reconciled to God accepted in Christ do proceed to offer vnto the L. the calves of our lips the best grace we have with vs men first declare their repentance then we receave them into our communion to worship with vs with them first men were receaved into typicall communion then they were trayned vp to repentance faith in Christ by the typical sacrifices of that typical communion Their worship began outwardly in the lettre proceded inwardly to the Spirit so did their coÌ„stitution ministery al our worship beginneth inwardly in the Spirit proceedeth outwardly to the lettre Therfor our constitution ministery worship government is contrary to theirs therfor Mr. Bern. if you had knowne or observed this you would not have objected these things of the old Testament for the joyning with suffering of open knowne sinne in the new Testament the communion thereof For how can these things agree except you wil make the New Testament the Old Testament abolish Christ set vp Iudaisme againe But I would fayne know how you can prove that these holy meÌ„ did suffer opeÌ„ known sinne or suffering it were not defiled therby defiled I say not in their communion which was typical but in their consent which was Spiritual But this point I must thus leave wayting for your answer For I avouch that either the sinnes which they suffered were not knowne or if they were knowne they were defiled by them so not repenting of them al their worship was defiled to themselves but yet being ceremonially cleane their communion in ceremonial worship was not vncleane vnto others if you doe object vnto me that their Spiritual communion was polluted vnto others I answer that their moral or Spiritual communion was invisible so could not pollute others ther visible communion was typical ceremonial that only polluted others For such as was ther communion such was ther pollution Ther communion visible being typical did only polute typicaly our communion visible being moral or Spiritual doth pollute
to the covenant Christ the promises as a freholder hath to his lands possessions Esa 9.6 Vnto vs a sonne is given the chruch is the spouse of Christ so hath powre to Christ the covenant promises the Church is the body of Christ the body hath a real possession title powre to the head all the helps therof For the faithful are flesh bones of Christ Eph. 5.30 these things are manifest to them that wil vnderstand if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant But it may be Mr. Bern. you wil say that powre to bind lose are no properties of the Church but only priviledges For shame say not so Surely this plea argueth that either you got litle Logick in the vniversity or that you have forgot it or if you remeÌ„ber it you either carelesly neglect it or wilfully pervert the vse of it to seduce your followers I pray you tel me in good sooth what difference is there betwixt a priviledg a propertie Is not a priviledge according to the notation of the word privata lex a private law wherin one person or state is interessed The King hath certaine previledges or prerogatives as to pardon condemned persons to dispence with his law a negative voice in parliament c. I would faigne know of you whither these be not properties such as the Kings Queenes of the nation only have title to no other but consider wel with your self what relation ther is betwixt a priviledg the person that is interressed in the priviledg Is it not the relation of the subject the adjunct A priviledg therfor is an adjunct to the priviledged person Now al adjuncts are either proper or common adjuncts but a priviledge is not a common adjunct as I am sure you wil confesse or els you want reason therfor it is a proper adjunct It it be a proper adjunct it is a propertie so your distinction is senselesse vnscholler like you may aswel say that pepper is hot in working cold in operation as to say that the true Church may be without her priviledges but not without her properties Therfor I doe heer before the L. attach you as a deceaver of the people in teaching thus contrary to al learning true vse of reason that the powre of the Lord Iesus Christ given to the church one part whereof consisteth in binding losing is only a priviledg not a propertie of the true Church that the true Church may want it It is as impossible for the true Church to want Christs powre as for a man to want reason Mr. Ber. answer now or els yeeld to the truth you cannot for shame denie the one of them Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the seaventh Section In this Section I write prove that the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principal members therof Mr. Bern. in his book intituled the Sep. Schisme pa. 88. calleth it the A.B.C. of Brownisme to hold That the powre of Christ that is authority to Preach to administer the Sacraments to exercise the censures of the Church belongeth to the whole Church yea to every one of them not the principal members therof Mr. Ains answering Mr. Ber pa. 174. Saith that Mr. Ber. may put this opinion if he please in the Criss-crosse-rew of Bernardisme he himself being the first that ever he heard to vtter such a position afterward pa. 175. 176. 177. 178. Expoundeth what that auncient Church whereof of he is teacher holdeth concerning it Wel Let vs handle these things largely to ful satisfaction herein I professe befor the Lord befor the whole world that if I do not prove evidently my assertion that the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principall members therof I wil acknowledg the Churches of England yea the Churches of Rome yea the Greek Churches also to have a true ministery to be true churches of Christ For if the ministerie the holy things with the ministerie come by succession from the Apostles handes through the churches of Rome the Grecians that ther are no ministers but such as are made by theÌ„ froÌ„ theÌ„ successively our whole cause of Seperation lyeth in the dust we must disclaime our Schisme which we have made our heresies which we hold but if it be proved that the true ministerie commeth not by succession from the churches of Rome or the Grecians that the holy things are not given to the ministery by sucessioÌ„ but are giveÌ„ first to the body of the church the faithful yea though they be but two or three that both the ministerie and all the powre that the ministerie hath doth â—â—ow from the Fountayne Christ Iesus through the body of the Church 〈◊〉 the Presbytery then is your Church ministerie false so are the Churches of the East West much more then we those Churches only which raise vp their Ministerie from the Election aprobation ordination of a faithful people are the true Church of Christ having the true Ministerie of Christ you with the rest of Gods people in Babylon must seperate joyne together walk in the Lords ordinances as we other true Churches doe or els woe be vnto you from the Lord Therfor in this particular I would supplicate the Kings Majestie my Soveragne Lord on earth the Lords of the Parliament The Gentlemen that susteyne the person of the commons in the nether howse al the learned men of the Land to confider to search out this point For it being throughly cleered may breed peace infinite good to the whole nation whereas it being suppressed choked darkened neglected draweth with it al the contentions and controversies amongst them that professe Christ in the whole earth For my part Mr. Ber. I wil endevour according to my poore hability to discover what I have conceaved and doe vndoubtedly beleeve from the Scriptures and doe make the beginning of my inquisition after this manner which I desire the gentle reader to weigh consider of with his best attention Christs visible church which is his Kingdom hath in it a spiritual powre and jurisdiction by the confession of al that professe Iesus Christ which powre is of two sortes 1. The powre of Christ himself who is the Lord King of his Church Mat. 28.18 and he is the Fountaine of powre being the head of the Church which is his body Eph. 1.22.23 For as the head is the Fountaine of life sense motion powre to the whole body as the Mr. of the howse is the original of al oeconomical powre So is Christ the original of al spiritual life sense motion powre to the Church which is his body family This is evident in regard of this powre which is inherent in Christ the church which
the assemblies in subjection to the prelates whose Lords you are if you be either Apostles Prophets or Evangelists but you see they are your Lords For either you are false Apostles false Prophets or els by the evidence of the word Spirit you must rise vp stand out against depose the prelates whose authority you say is Antichristian besides that you must prove vnto vs by good sufficient warrant that the Lord raiseth vp Apostles prophets Evangelists to overthrow Antichrist to restore the true ministerie that you who with al your might support the Throne of the beast are those Apostles prophets Evangelists whome the L. raiseth vp for that purpose which yet you never have done or attempted to do whither you can do or not I leave to the consideration of al those that search after the truth Hetherto I have proved by sufficient arguments negatively that Christs Ministeriall powre is not given by Christ primarily by succession either to the pope Bbs. or presbytery whose claime dependeth vppon one the same title viz Successive ordination from the Apostles through the Church of Rome to the hands of every preist or presbyter in England therfor the Ministerial powre of Christ must needes be given primarily to the bodx of every visible Church though they be but two or three in nomber For this is a sufficient Enumeration of parts that Christs ministerial powre is given primarily either to the Pope Bbs. Presbytery or body of the Church except that men wil say it is given to the King of every Kingdom which is an absurdity intollerable as is already declared which I never heard pleaded for which the Kings of England doe renounce But Christs ministerial powre is not giuen by successive ordination either to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily or originally therfor Christs ministerial powre is givē to the body of the Church viz to two or thre faithful people joyned together into an Ecclesiastical politique body by the true covenant or new testament of Christ Iesus But bicause happily some persons may be vnsatisfied seing the former arguments are only grownded vppon reason not frō particular evidence of Scripture Therfor I hold it necessary furthermore to confirme this truth of the L. by vndeniable growndes of Scripture that affirmatively as followeth The first Argument from Mat. 16 13-20 From this place of Scripture I frame an argument after this manner Christs Disciples are Christs Church Mat. 16.13.18 Christs ministerial powre is given to Christs Disciples Ergo Christs ministerial powre is given to Christs Church The Minor of this argument which only is doubtful I confirme thus That which was spoken given to Peter that was spoken given to al the Disciples of Christ Mat. 16.13.14.19 Christs ministerial powre was vttered delivered to Peter who spake for in the name of the rest Mat. 16.13.15.16.18.19 Ergo Christs ministerial powre was by speech indeed committed to all Christs Disciples The Major of this argument only is controversal which I manifest thus Vnto them did Christ speake commit his ministerial powre that made the confession viz that Christ was that Christ the Sonne of the living God But Peter al the Disciples by Peters mouth made that confession viz that Christ was that Christ the Sonne of the living God Ergo Vnto all the Disciples did Christ speake give that his Ministeriall powre The Minor being cleered the whole Argumēnt is evident VVherfor consider 1. That Christ in the vs. 13. asketh his Disciples a question 2. In the vs 15. he saith whome do ye say that I am by which it appeareth that Christ asketh this question of all his Disciples generally and so it followeth by proportion necessarily that seing all were demaunded that question therfor all made that answer confession the argument is framed after this manner They answered made the confession vnto whome Christ propounded the question or made the demaund But Christ propounded the question or demaund to all his Disciples and not only to peter or only to the twelve Apostles as may be proved in the course of the text vs. 13-24 Ergo All the Disciples answered made the confession ther mentioned by the Evangelist The Second Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 16.19 From these places I reason after this manner That which is given to two or thre of Christs Disciples is given to the body of the Church if they be many in nomber Christs Ministeriall powre is given to two or three Disciples of Christ Ergo Christs ministerial powre much more is givē to the body of the church being many in nomber The Major is without controversie for iff Christs powre be given to two or three then much more to twenty thirtie an hundreth they being al of them Christs Disciples The minor is proved after this manner The keies of the Kingdom of heaven or the powre of binding losing is given to two or three Disciples of Christ Christs ministerial powre is the keies of the Kingdom of heaven or the powre of binding losing Ergo Christs ministeriall powre is given to two or three Disciples off Christ The minor being evident the major may thus be confirmed Vnto them doth Christ give the keies of the kingdom of heaven or powre of binding losing to whome of whome he speaketh But Christ speaketh to Diseiples of brethren Ergo the keies of the Kingdom of heaven or powre of binding losing is givē by Christ to the Disciples or brethren The minor viz that Christ speaketh to Disciples of brethren is manifest by divers particular vs. 1.15.21 The Disciples move a question vnto Christ concerning the Kingdom of heaven Christ teacheth vnto them vs. 15. that the litle ones that is the brethrē the Disciples must not be offēded or if they go astray be lost they should be sought againe vs. 15-17 teacheth the dutyes of admonition in the degrees therof for the winning of our brethren perserving of them from going astray therfor vs. 18. he speaketh of brethren Disciples attributing to them the powre of binding losing vs. 19. promising the hearing of their prayers vs. 20. promising to them his presence if they be but three or two vs. 21.22 teaching them remission of offences private vnto seaventy tyme seaven tymes VVherevppon I ground this infallible argument Iff the whole scope intent of this place Mat. 18 15-20 compared with Mat. 16 13-20 doth ayme at the Disciples of Christ or the brethren Mat. 23.8 teaching that binding and losing the keies of the Kingdom of heaven Christs presence acceptance of their prayers c. aperteyneth to them then Christs ministerial powre is given to the Disciples or brethren if but three or two so much more if they be a multitude But the whole scope of these places is directed to the Disciples or brethren Teaching that offences must be
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 9-9-reasons are brought against popularity as you cal it you are to remeÌ„ber that Christs church in several respects is a Monarchie
the Church hath powre which powre commeth after into act execution when her officers are chosen viz The powre of baptizing administring the Lords Supper yet it may also be questioned whither the Church may not as well administer the Seales of the covenant before they have Officers as Pray Prophesy Elect Officers and the rest seing that to put the Seales to the covenant is not a greater work then publishing the covenant or Election of officers or excommunication The third of your 9. reasons against popularity is that it is against Christs commission granted to the Apostles their Successors as Timothie Titus the cheef ministers of the Gospel that therfor the place 1. Cor. 5.4 must be expounded of the Elders as you say the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 2.6 Wel Mr. Bern. this is old rusty rotten popish stuffe even as auncient as the Church of Antichrist some of it viz that of succession which hath already receaved answer the contrary been proved at large in this Section whither I referre you But heer are certaine vntruths avouched by you which must be answered viz one is that Christs commission was granted only to the Apostles their Successors I have proved already in the former reasons that the commission was given to the body of the Church expounding those foure places which you quote viz Mat. 28.19 16.19 Iohn 20 21-23 Marc. 13.34 which also is further cleeâ—ed for that the twelve were not yet Apostles but only nominated to the office for they were indued with powre froÌ„ on high vppon the day of Pentecost Luk. 24.49 compared with Act. 2.4 Eph 4.8.11 as also for that Cleopas Mary Magdalene others besides the eleven were present when the commission was given vnto the Disciples finally bicause the Apostles were the Church representative yea every one of them having in them powre to performe al the offices of al officers members of the Church the Church only is the true Successor of the Apostles no one man oâ— Minister whatsoever seing no one person hath powre to performe al offices of all officers and members which notwithstanding the whole Church joyntly hath A second vntruth is this that you say the Apostles committed that commission given them by Christ not to the body of the Church but to Timothie Titus ther successors as appeareth 1. Tim. 6.13.14 as you say wherto I answer that the Apostles leave the powre which they receaved from Christ joyntly with the rest of the Disciples in the hands of the Church not of Timothie Titus only that chardg which Paul giveth to Timothie respecteth the whole Epistle and all the contents thereof which aperteyne to all sorts of persons in the Church aswell as to Timothie as may be seen in the whole second Chapter how prove you that Timothy an Evangelist Succeeded Paull an Apostle Or that the Elders of Ephesus succeded Timothie an Evangelist A third vntruth is this that you say the place 1. Cor. 5.4.13 must be vnderstood of Elders as you say may appeare 1. Cor. 2.6 wherto I answer that this is a prety trick but it wil not serve your turne to turne away the truth evidence to this place For first the Epistle is written to the whole body of the Church al the circumstances of the Chap. 5. teach that the whole body was leavened that their rejoycing was not good that they ought not to be mingled with the brethren that were fornicators that they ought not to eate the L. Supper with such persons that they have powre to judg them that are within that they must cast out from among them that incestuous person whereas you would needes by one phrase viz the rebuke of many 2. Cor. 2.6 expound this general as spoken of many Elders not many brethren I say herein you coyne a false exposition For doth it follow that bicause the rebuke was delivered by many either brethren or Elders who are to leade in al publique actions therfor the Apostle enjoyneth the Elders only to excommunicate or bicause some only pronounce the rebuke the sentence of excommunication therfor they only have powre to decree it I desire you would make these consequents hang or depend necessarily vppon ther antecedents or els you doe but wrest the Scriptures to your destruction besides that place 2. Cor. 2.6 doth not teach who either decreed or pronounced his excommunication but only who rebuked him for his sinne which were many Elders if you will For I take it the place is manifest that he was not excommunicate bicause he repented vppon the reproof which the Apostle saith is sufficient And sometyme in the Scripture many signifieth all all signifieth many as these places declare Matt. 3.5 Roman 5.18.19 Therefore this quirck off yours is but a meer Sophisticall cavill to put of the truth The fourth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the place of Ephes 4.11.12 is against it for ther the Apostle declareth say you that gifts for the ministerie are given to the Ministers for the Church not to the Church for the Ministers and that therefore the powre of Christ is not given to the body of the Church but only to the Elders this you shew by a similie from the parts of the body which do not receave their qualityes facultyes or gifts from the body but from God To this reason I answer that you declare your self to be either blind or willfully to shut your eyes against the truth evidence of this place For it is as cleer as the shining of the Sunne in the Firmament of heaven against your exposition objection For I pray you in good sooth doth this argument follow viz Christ giveth gifts vnto meÌ„ not by the mediation of the body of the Church therfor Christ giveth his ministerial powre to the officers not to the body yet this is the force of your argument which may for more evidence be framed thus If Christ give gifts to the officers of the Church not by the Church but immediately by from himself Then Christ giveth powre of binding losing to the officers of the Church not by the meanes of the church but by such meanes as God hath appointed that is as I gesse by Succession But you say the Antecedent is true by the place of the Eph 4. And I say the consequent or conclusion followeth not vppon the antecedent but it is meerly asyllogiston But I will declare the inconsequence more fully The Lord he giveth gifts to men either ordinarily or extraordinarily Extraordinarily he gave gifts to men in the primitive Churches Ordinarily he giveth gifts to men by study paynes by nature so he gave the gifts of Tongs and Prophesy extraordinarily to the primittive Churches be giveth the same gifts now ordinarily by meanes of Study and the help of naturall witt How will it follow that bicause the Lord gave gifts therefore he gave
his Ministeriall powre extraordinarily from heaven VVhy you confesse that powre of binding and losing was given before Christs ascension but now you would prove by this place Ephes 4. that the powre of binding losing is given after Christs assension and that these gifts and this powre are given together is not this to contradict your self hereby you see the weakenes of your reason For you must distinguish betwixt the powre of binding and losing which the Disciples had committed vnto them before Christs ascension and betwixt the gifts of the day of Pentecost But what are those gifts mentioned in that place of Ephes 4.8.11.12 and vnto whome are those gifts given I will declare it vnto you and so your mouth shal be â—â—opt These gifts which are said to be given to men are those foure sorts of Officers which the Apostle mentioneth vs 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers for the two last are one office These officers with their gifts are said to be given to men who are these men vnto whome these officers with their gifts are giveÌ„ are they not the Church is not the office of an Elder Pastor or Teacher the L. gift to the Church This place you see therefore is most pregnant against your opinion as may appeare thus That which is given by Christ to the Church is in the powre possession of the Church The officers offices of the Church are given to the Church Ergo the officers offices of the Church are in the powre possession of the Church Wherfor I say vnto you that the gifts of preaching administration of the Sacraments Governing are given vnto some meÌ„ but the office officers indued with these gifts are given vnto the Church who have powre to appoint them to their office who do receave both their office powre to administer in their office from the Church vnto whome the office powre of Christ is given primarily being the next Lord therof vnder Christ the Monarch And for your similie of the parts receaving their properties from God not from the body it is perversly applyed For this is the true vse and application of the similie as the head communicateth all the powre facultie which any part hath from it self to that part by the body so the head Christ communicated his powre to the parts and officers of the Church by the body of the Church which is Christ mysticall I confesse some parts of the body have some special properties and qualities which they receave not from the head as the Stomach hath the quality Chilificandi the liver Sangnificandi c. not from the head but the powre and faculty to vse the property it hath from the head So some members of the Church have special gifts given them of God but the powre of vsing those gifts they have from the head Christ by the meanes of the body which is the pipe that from the Fountaine conveigheth all powre Ecclesiastical to every officer The Fifth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the Scripture doth not lay the Government vppon the people nor reproveth them for sussering abuse of Holy things but vppon the governors civil Ecclesiastical Ezech. 22.26 1. Sam. 2 17. 1. King 13. Mat 23. Revel 2.1.8.12.18 3.17.14 I answer breefly from the Type to the truth concerning matters of the Old Testament Seing now the Saynts are all of them made Kings and Preists vnto God Revelat. 1.6 Or as the Apostle Peter saith Basileion hierateuma 1. Pet. 2.9 a Kingly Preisthood Therefore now in the New Testament the Saynts succeede in the place of the Kings and Preists of the Old Testament in Ecclesiasticall causses and as they were burdened with Government and reproof for profanation of holy things so are the Saynts the members of the visible Church now burdened with Government Ecclesiasticall and reproof for violating the Holy things committed to their custody fidelity therfor I reason from your owne confession against you thus If Kings Preists in the Old Testament were chardged with Government and blamed for violation of holy things Then in the New Testament the Saints who are Kings Preists are chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things But Kings Preistts in the old Testament were chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things Therfor the Saints in the new Testament are chardged with government ecclesiastical blamed for violation of Holy things And thus you see Mr. Ber. how your owne weapon entreth into your owne bowels concerning the places of the Revelation that the Aungels of the seaven Churches were chardged with government blamed for abuse of the Holy things not the body of the Church I say herein you vtter foule vntruths For Chap. 1. vs. 4-7 the Apostle witeth to the 7. Churches of Asia wisheth grace peace to the Churches all the members of the Churches Chap. 2.11 at the end of every Epistle the Apostle maketh application of every Epistle to al that have eares to the particular Churches wher for I wonder at your shamelesse ignorance that should thus falsely belye the Scriptures abuse the reader To turne the point of this reason of yours also vppon your self I say thus If Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with gouernment abuse of holy things though the message be sent to the aungel to be published to the whole church then the whole churches are charged therwith viz with government violatioÌ„ of holy things But Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with the government abuse of Holy things though the message be sent to the Aungel of every Church to be published to the whole Church Therfor the whole Churches are chardged with the government violation of the holy things Thus much breefly concerning your fifth reason heer you make a digression to prove vnto vs that Matt. 18.17 Tell the Church must be expounded Tel the Governors For confirmation whereof you bring vs seaven reasons which I will handle in order Your first reason to prove that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this for that otherwise Christ could not be vnderstood for if he had brought in a strange course not heard of before nor then practised no man could vnderstand his meaning Seing therfor before then after the practise was to tel to the Elders or governors therfor tel to the Church is tel to the Governors or Elders A las for you Mr. Bern. this is borrowed stuffe yet stark naught For it is but froth chaffe what is the chaffe to the wheat Do not you think that the whole Gospell is a mystery which was kept secreat from the beginning of the world is not the visible Church of the new Testament with all the ordinances thereof the cheef principal part of the Gospel therfor seing this ordinance of telling the Church is a part of the Gospel it was
formerly hidden mystical now it was revealed plainly by Christ although happily the Disciples vnderstood not Christs meaning at that present yet after ward the Holy Ghost brought that many other necessary things which they eyther vnderstood not Christs meaning at that present yet afterward the Holy Ghost brought that many other necessary things which they either vnderstood not or forgot to their knowledg memory as the Scripture witnesseth But further I say that particular was obscurely signified by the Typical King and Preists in the Old Testament vnto whome the Government was committed as I have already more then once declared vnto you further the government was then given to al Christs Disciples by commission as I have already proved sufficiently to your conscience the conscience of all that love the truth in sincerity That of the excommunication of the blind man Ioh. 9.22 was a devise of the Iewes for ther is no warrant for it in al the law if it were the L. ordinance it typeth vnto vs thus much that the visible Church succeeding in the place of the typical Kings preists have in their hands the powre of excommunication And although Cloe made complaint to the Governor yet it is nothing to the purpose For Cloe complayneth of an whole Church to an Apostle not of a particular person to the Elders of a particular Church and doe you think that this is a good argument That seing a particular person complayneth to or informeth the Apostle of the state of the Church who had an infallible gift of instructing and directing of Churches therefore a particular person in the third place or degree of admonition must tell the Elders that therfor those Elders are the Church The argument is altogether inconsequent Your second reason that tel the Church is tel the Governors is Christs chandg of the person From the third to the second The force of your argument is this If Christ having spoken in the third person saying Tel the Church afterward turneth his speech to the second person saying whatsoever ye bind c. then tel the Church is tel the Elders But Christ chandgeth his speech from the third to the second person Therfor tell the Church is tel the Elders Mr. Ber. you were not wel advised in making this argument For it overthroweth your exposition most manifestly as thus If Christ calleth his Disciples the Church then tel the Church is tel the Disciples or the body of the Church But Christ calleth al his Disciples the Church For this commission of binding and losing is given to all the Disciples jointly as is already declared more fully in the former arguments Therfor tel the Church is tel the body of the Church al Christs Disciples not only the Governors Therfor this reason confirmeth the truth we hold not the error which you seek to defend by wresting the Scripture Your third reason that tel the Church is tell the Governors is for that Christ speaketh of two or three That is to say after your exposition of two or three Elders or governors not of the whole body I answer that your argument is without al force of consequence For to argue thus is to argue without reason or force of argument viz. Iff Christ speaketh of two or three then he speaketh of two or three Elders or Governors But Christ speaketh of two or three Ergot Christ speaketh of two or three Elders or Governors Further by this argument one Apostle could do nothing but ther must needes be two or thre so one Elder can do nothing but ther must needes be two or thre so your Prelates Monarchy in their dioceses falleth to the ground but your arguments grow ridiculous Now the reason why Christ speaketh of two or thre is for consolatiō to the Church Disciples of Christ teaching that if but two or thre of them at any tyme walk together in the faith truth of Christ those two or thre have title to Christ al his ordinances have promise of audience acceptance as also to instruct the Saynts to stand for the truth against multitudes though they be the smallest nomber which is three or two for Christ he wil not leave them destitute of his presence and asistance Your Fourth reasons that Tel the Church is Tel the Elders in this that the person is changed from the second to the third vs 19. if two of you shal agree c. whatsoever they shal ask c the force of the argument is al one with the second so hath receaved answer there but it seemeth you delight in nomber multitude yet for further evidēce I will show you the reason the frame whereof is thus to be conceaved Iff ther be a Grammaticall change of the person viz you they then ther is a Reall chandg off the person physicall viz The Governors The Church But ther is a grammatical chandg of the person you they Ergo Ther is a Real chandg of the person physicall viz The Governors the Church I deny your Major stil I avouch that the chandg of the person is by way of exposition teaching that they you are one namely whither they be two of Christs Disciples then living viz you or any other two or thre to the end of the world viz they Christ hath promised his powre presence acceptance to them For so he saith wheresoever two or thre vs 20. Mat. 28.20 Lo I am with you alwayes So that these two general circumstances of place tyme are for the consolatiō instruction of the Church if they be but two or three in al ages For not the multitude but the truth is respected of Christ al tymes places are indifferent for the Church of the new Testament which was otherwise in the old Testament For the Lord then promised his presence especially in the Temple vppon their Sabbaths to the special people but now the partition wal is broken downe now al tymes places persons are indifferēt for the church the Lord. Your fifth reason that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this that otherwise absurdityes cannot be avoyded that arise out of the text the absurdityes you suppose would follow are 1. confusion 2 carelesnes wherevppon follow pride contention 3. weomen childrē speaking in the Church 4. that the whole Church cā speak 5. Christs should crosse himself who giveth the powre to two or three Herevnto I answer the supposed absurdities either do not follow or if they do folow are no absurdities For the truth is not absurd First it doth not follow that ther must needs be confusion carelesnes pride or contention if a brother be promoted to the body of the Church for his offence after once twise admonition but rather the brethren vnderstanding that al are interessed in the busines wil be careful to dischardg their dutyes whereas by your fancy the
care chardg being cast vppon the Elders from the brethren they may wholly neglect the matter the Church grow corrupt through the Elders partiality negligence or other sinister respect for confusion it is not intended as you grossely imagine that al should speake but that al should consent For as in prayer one speaketh al the Church consent So in publique admonition excommunication one speaketh at once the rest consent if any man have any thing to say he may speake the first hold his peace as in Prophecy so in admonition by proportion 1. Cor. 14.30 yet the Lords oâ—der not be violated if pride therevppon contentions do arise it is through the corruption of men not through the ordinance of God may ther not much more pride grow in the Elders think you when they are absolute Lords as it were over the people wil not that breed much more contention And to contend for the truth is good and warrantable yea contentions must be in the true church but woe be to those by whome they come Secondly you say the whole Church cannot speake joyntly nor severally one by one except weomen children speak I deny it the whole Church may speake joyntly as in prayer prophesying 1. Cor. 11.4 So also in admonition excommunication by some persons deputed therto either Elders if ther be any or other if ther be no Elders for the speaking of weomen in the Church I say it needeth not for they so al the brethren may speake by silence or if any dissent they may speak either woman or youth yet the rule of the Apostle not violated who forbiddeth weomen to lead the action of worship in prayer or prophesy or praising God or any action of Government in the presence of men but he doth not forbid a woman to speake when she is called therto in matter of Government neither doth the Apostle intend to forbid weomen to pray or prophesy in the presence of weomen only as somtyme the occasion may be ministred if the church consist only of weomen that this is so you shal perceave by comparing these places 1. Cor. 14.34 1. Tim. 2.12 considering the reasons of the Apostles prohibition but let vs see the force of your argument If tel it to the Church be tel it to the body of the Church then every member of the Church must speake in rebuking the partie But every member must not speak in rebuking the partie that is promoted to the Church for sinne Therfor tel it to the Church is not tel it to the body of the Church so it must needes be tel it to the Elders I deny your consequent for al may heare take notice give consent speake if they se just cause orderly yet it followeth not that al are bound to speake vocaly one by one For silence is a sufficient testification of consent Further I say your minor is weake For every one is bound to speak that seeth just cause or els he shall ther by strangle his conscience and quench the Spirit and suffer sinne which he cannot do without sinne Lastly Christ crosseth not himself in giving powre to two or thre For he may give powre to two or three if ther be no more yet to twenty an hundreth a thousand if ther be so many but you Mr. Bern raise vp false expositions wrack the text to support heresies therby making the Scriptures a leaden rule to frame to your crooked conceipts a nose of waxe to be wrung which way your perverse apprehensions incline Your sixth reason that tel the Church is tel the Governors is this that els the Corinthians offended who were al commaunded to deale with the incestuous Corinth yet some only did so Paul should sinne who vppon the advertisement of Cloes howse did not wayt for the churches consent but himself alone determined the matter wils them to exente his senteÌ„cein the open congregation I answer al the Corinths did deale with the incestuous person though many spake the rest giving consent to their speeches therfor ther can no more sinne lye vppon theÌ„ for not rebuking by voice then ther lyeth sinne vppon the whole Church for not lifting vp their voice to speake in prayer prophesy being al commaunded so to do besides all might speake for many somtyme signifieth al as I have already shewed but this is but idle stuffe which you object Furthermore Paul was an Apostle having powre infalibility to plant direct reforme Churches wil you froÌ„ hence fetch a rule for the perpetual government of the Church it followeth not Paul did thus go one Prelate may do thus nay by your owne exposition ther must nedes be two or thre Prelates but what did Paul did he performe the whole decree of excommunication I deny it vtterly but the Apostles meaning is that he for his part gave his voice advise commaundemeÌ„t as having receâ—ved grace to be faithful that the incestuous person should be excommunicate note it wel Mr. Ber. Paul doth bid the Elders as you say excommunicate him caÌ„ these things agre I beleeve your wit was wandering when you wrote these things for you avouched out of the 2. Cor. 2.6 that many Elders did excoÌ„municate the incestuous person now you say that Paul at the information of Cloes Family like a Lord Bb. decrees the sentence of excommunication in his court coÌ„maundeth them to pronounce it you gave this powre of late to the Elders now you take it froÌ„ the Elders give it to Paul make the Elders only his deputyes but I wil shew you the reason of this your oversight contradiction you had by you in your study when you penned your book the writings of the Reformists the writings of the Prelates being in wrath choler enraged against vs of the SeperatioÌ„ you thought to make Herod Pilate frends against Christ have gathered both the Prelates Reformists objections against vs put theÌ„ downe in your book without judgment so through the weaknes of your vnderstanding not discerning the reasons of the Reformists Prelates to contradict bicause they fitted you against vs you not regarding the truth but the victory have fallen into this grosse contradiction which your learning can never salve only your repentance confession can cure it Your last reason that tel the Church is tel the Elders is this for that al reformed churches judg so wel yet you said even now that tel the Church is tel the Apostle Paul the Lord Bb. by consequent his successors are you in your right mynd Mr. Ber. that stumble thus but you see what it is to resist the truth But what if al the reformed Churches say so is it so if the Scripture say contrary it is not so the Churches must be reformed yet further according to the Scriptures
Finaly you prove that figuratively the part may cary the name of the whole who denyeth it that therfor the Elders are called the Church I deny that For it foloweth not yet I yeeld you thus much which you shal gaine nothing by that two or three Elders may be termed a church being severaly by theÌ„selves but jointly with the body they are not so so a Christian family or rather the Christians in a family may be truly termed a church severaly yet jointly with the body they are not so For know you Mr. Ber. that the parts of the Church are similares Homogoncae as every part of water is water so every part of a Church if they be a coÌ„munion is a Church being severed necessarily from the whole you say also that a company without officers no where is called a Church Christian families only excepted in al the new Testament except Act. 14 23. by anticipation First you must prove vnto me Mr. Ber. that this place Act. 14.23 is by anticipation For doth it follow bicause heaven earth are so called by anticipation Gen. 1.1 therfor a company wanting officers are called a Church by anticipation besides you speake falsely saying that in al the new testament a company without officers is not caled a church what say you to Act. 19.41 any company of people is called a Câ—â—rch in that place and whereas you confesse that a Christian family is called a Church by the warrant of the new Testament you yeeld the cause For if two or thre faithful persons of a family are a Church then two or thre faithful persons of divers families are a Church or els shew you a found reason to the contrary hence I reason thus They which the Scripture cal a Church are a Church The Scripture calleth two or thre beleevers in a family a Church Therfor two or thre beleevers in a family are a Church Againe If two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church then two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church by proportion But two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church by your confession testimony of the Scripture Therfor two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church But know Mr. Ber. that we strive not about the word but about the matter bee they Ecclesia Synagoge Disciples brethren Saints we regard not the word we say that two or thre Disciples Saints brethren are Sinagoge Ecclesia a congregation with whome Christ is present who have Christs powre vnto whome every member of the body must be promoted for sinne this you neither have disproved nor ever shal be able heer endeth your digression now you come vnto your sixth reason Your 6. reason against popularity is a repetition of things already answered in the fifth reason that Tell the Church is Tel the Governors Therfor I referre the reader thither Your 7. reason against popularity is that it is against the coÌ„maundement of Christ For Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2 the sheep must obey the shepheard the flock must depend vppon the Pastor he is not to obey them or depend vppon them I answer To the place Heb. 13.17 I say the Apostle doth not intend to teach that the whole body of the Church must yeeld to the voice of the Elders in every thing that they list nor that the Eldership hath in their hands the powre of Christ to rule contrary to their liking For the Lord submitteth both Pastors Flock vnto his owne lawes wil but the intent of the Apostle is to show that al the particular members in al their affaires must submitt themselves to the instruction direction guidance of the Elders For although Christ hath placed the Elders as stewards over the Servants yet he hath not appointed them as Lords over his spowse wife your argument therfor is a fallacian a conjunctione divisione thus Al the particular members must obey the Elders in their lawful instructions their wholsome admonitions severally Ergo the whole body must jointly obey the voice of the Elders Againe the whole Flock consisteth of two parts Officers and the Saints The Saints must obey the Officers that is one part of the Church must be directed by another as the foote by the eye yet the whole body jointly is above any one member or members apart Further al the Saints shal yeeld obedience to Elders in things coÌ„maunded by God the Elders shal al of them obey the voice of the church in things coÌ„maunded by God but the question is how far the sheep must obey the Elders who are shepheards how far the Elders which are the L. Servants must obey the wife spowse of Christ which is the Church For know you Mr. Ber. these things may well stand together that the whole Church may obey the Elders in some things the Elders must obey the body of the Church in other things The other place 1. Pet. 5.2 to en humin may aswel be translated with al your best ability as that dependeth vppon you but I say further that the Flock must depend vppon the shepheards as they are sheep as they al jointly are the wife of the lamb the best members must submit to her voice being the voice of her husband Lord. You eight reason against popularity is this that it is against common sence that the parents should submit to the Children the workman to the work the Seedsman to the corne I answer neither is it reason that the whole body should yeeld to the hand or the Servant to the Mr. Or the wife to the mayd But you know the Church is a body the Elders hands other parts the church is the Mrs. the Elders are Servants but comparisons are not to be vrged further then their intention lest we break them in peeces spoyle the proportion somtyme in some cases the pareÌ„ts may lawfully submit to children the workemen to the work the husbandmeÌ„ to the corne For you know that relations chandg arguments Your ninth last reason against popularity is that it is against the dignity office of true Ministers who represent Christs person having their powre from him which none but such as represent Christ can give or take away But the body of the Church doth not represent Christs person nor ever did depose or make Ministers and bicause the body of the Church are not Ministers therfor they cannot make Ministers such like rotten stuffe I answer That the Ministers do represent Christs person I deny not but avouch that the Church doth much more represent Christs person who is the Spowse wife of Christ that the Ministers have their powre from Christ I deny not but al their powre commeth from Christ through the body of the Church as I have sufficiently proved already That the Church hath made Ministers I have shewed Act. 1. they chose an Apostle when as yet they
fellowship communion agreement concord or part with you Answer to this now Maister Bernard and seduce your hearers no longer with vanityes Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the eighth Section Mr. Ber. in his book intituled the Sep. Schisme pa. 103. hath these wordes viz that ouâ— seaventh error should be to hold That the sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in being not reformed nor the offender cast out doth so pollute the whole congregation that none may communicate with the same in any of the Holy things of God though it be a Church rightly constituted til the party be excommunicated In this eighth Section the position is thus vttered by you by mee justified viz That one sinne of one man publiquely and obstinately stood in and not reformed by a true constituted Church doth so pollute it that none may communicate with it in the Holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawfull conviction Afterward expounding this truth I say that if the Church hold this obstinate impenitent convicted person in communion they consent to his sinne as the civil magistrate suffering wilful murther consenteth vnto it Mr. Ains confutat of Mr. Bern. pag. 178.179 doth first renounce this truth denyeth it to be either their judgment or practise referring vs to the confession of their faith Art 26. wher their judgmeÌ„t is that none is to Seperate for offences but by due order to seek redresse yet afterward affirmeth that if the Church will not rebuke nor cast out a man obstinate and impenitent in wickednes but plead for him against such as call vppon them for judgment then are all such abettors of the wicked sinner themâ—elves and that in a high degree now not that one mans sinne but the sinne of them al polluteth them Wel Mr. Ains you I wil not differ about this point for wither it be his sinne consented vnto by them or their sin which is a consent approbation to his sinne or both I regard not The truth is the truth that that one sinne polluteth them al by contagion as the leaven leaveneth the whole lump although Mr. Bern. hath not so plainly directely propounded it as he might yet let it not be denyed for it is the truth he doth chardg vs withal giving a true exposition I tell you true Mr. Ains you deny the truth if you deny the position but indeed your denyall your affirmation contradict Heer Mr. Bern. for your sake I wil performe two things First I wil confirme this truth which we defend against you that joyne with open knowne sinners in the communion of your false Church Secondly I wil refel your cavils against this truth of God wherin wee walk For the first point I wish you to remember what hath been proved vnto you in the former Section viz That Christs ministerial powre is given to the body of the Church which if it be true as it is proved to be the vndoubted truth of God then this second position followeth necessarily therevppon therefore is to be embraced for the truth of God in like manner For every consequent necessarily deduced from the Scripture is as wel as truly the word of truth as that which is in plaine termes expressed noted downe in nomber of wordes For even as the branches of the tree doe as truly proceed from the root as the great graines or body of the tree are al of one kind nature doth root body graynes braunches So a necessary consequent growing by true discourse out of the Scripture is aswel as truly the word of truth as the position or doctryne or sentence is whence it was raised wherfor I frame an argument from the former ground afteÌ„r this manner If they that have Christs ministerial powre to reforme obstinate convicted sinners or to excommunicate theÌ„ do neither reforme them nor cast them out froÌ„ among them but suffer them stil in communion consenting therby to their sinn then the persons so suffering consenting to sinne are polluted by contagion of the sin impenitent wicked sinner But it may fal out that a Church true in the constitution having Christs ministerial powre yet afterward declining may neither reforme an obstinate convicted sinner nor cast him out of their communion but may suffer him stil in communion therby consenting to his sinne Ergo a Church truly constituted having Christs Ministeriall powre of reformation or excommunication suffering and consenting to sinne sinners convinced are polluted by infection of that sinne and of that impenitent obstinate convicted sinner And so by necessary consequent I conclude after this manner If a Church truly constituted be all of them polluted by consent as is already declared then they do violate and profane all the Holy things of God wherin they pertake For to the vncleane nothing is cleane as the Apostle testifieth Tit. 1.15 the Prophet Esa 1.12 But a Church truly constituted may grow to polution by consenting to obstinate sinne sinners as is already declared Therfor a Church truly constituted may grow to the violation manifest profanation of al the Holy things of God From this evident truth I proceed reason after this manner To that Church company or communion of men we may not joyne in Spirituall communion that violateth or profaneth the holy things of God But a Church truly constituted may grow to the violation manifest profanation of al the Holy things of God Ergo to a Church truly constituted growne to polute violate the holy things of God we are not to joyne in communion Thus you se Mr. Ber. the evidence of this truth manifested vnto your conscience if the Lord vouchsafe you mercy to see the truth Like arguments may be drawne from many places of Scripture as from Mat. 13.33 compared with 1. Cor. 5.6 an argument may be framed thus As the whole lump the feast of the passeover was leavened with a litle leaveÌ„ so one open knowne sinne polluteth the visible Church the holy things therof for you must vnderstand that the Apostle doth not cal vnknowne sinne leaven but by leaven he vnderstandeth sinne openly knowne convinced vnrepented els ther could be no communion for men on earth But the Apostle our Saviour saith out of the law that a litle leaven leaveneth the whole lump feast of the passeover Therfor one sinne convinced vnrepented polluteth the visible church the holy things therof therevnto may no man joyne Againe from persons ceremonialy poluted so defiling the Sanctuary of the Lord as appeareth Nomb. 19.13.20 Hag. 2.14 I reason thus As persons ceremonialy poluted vnclensed entering into the Sanctuary of the Lord or medling with the holy flesh or pottage did polute the Sanctuary the holy flesh pottage the rest So the visible Church of the new Testament morally poluted impenitent in sin medling with the holy things
of God polute defile the same But the L. avoucheth by the mouth of his holy Prophets that persons ceremonialy vncleane vnclensed entering vnto the Sanctuary or medling with holy flesh or pottage polute defile them Therfor the visible Church of the new testament morally poluted impenitent in sin dealing with the holy things do profane them therfor no man with good conscience can joyne with that profanation Finally as in the old testament the King Magistrates suffering sin vnpunished were poluted therwith by consent So in the new testament the visible church who are Kings Spiritualy have committed vnto them the judgments of the L. the ministerial powre of Christ suffering sinne vnreformed among them are polluted thereby But in the Old Testament the Kings and Magistrates by your owne confession Mr. Bernard pag. 94. were poluted with sinne vnreformed in the common wealth Therfor in the New Testament the visible Church who are Kings Spiritualy having committed vnto them the judgments of the L. the ministerial powre of Christ suffering sinne vnreformed among them are poluted therby so no communioÌ„ to be had with them least partaking with them in sinne by consent we receave of their plagues Now you se evidently proved by testimonies of Scriptures by direct consequents from the same that it is vnlawful for any man to joyne to a Church that was truly constituted now growne to profane violate the holy things of God by consenting to sin wicked obstinate convinced impenitent sinners that therfor much more is it vnlawful to joyne to your false churches which never were truly constituted since the defectioÌ„ of Antichrist but remaine in the gulfe of Antichristianisme vnto this day the first point therfor being manifest the second foloweth to be enterprised which is to answer the objections cavils which you make against this comfortable truth of the L. I cal it a comfortable truth bicause herin consisteth the true comfort of churches Christians publiquely privately that they neither live in nor consent to any known sin in themselves or other For otherwise seing sinnes corruptions break out dayly in the best Churches Christians herin is our comfor that we give no allowance to them no not so much as by our presence in that communion wher open known sinne is suffered as it is most plentifully and abundantly in your false Churches and in other Churches that are of a true constitution In your objections against this truth the first thing that I reprove is that you do falsely interpret consent to sin for a man may consent to sin though he in judgment affection contenaÌ„ce action do declare his dislike of it as for exaÌ„ple Ely did al this to his sonnes that poluted the L. Sacrifices coÌ„mitted adultery with the weomen that came to sacrifice 1. SaÌ„ 2.22.23 for he should have proceded to the vtmost that the word of God had required at his haÌ„ds viz to have put his soÌ„nes to death which bicause he did not he was poluted with their sinnes by conseÌ„t therfor the fearful judgmeÌ„t of God befel him which whsooever heard both their eares tingled 1. Sa. 3.11 so except a maÌ„ do by al meÌ„ anes save himself from the froward generation by Seperating himself as the Apostle practised counselleth Act. 2.4 19.9 2. cor 6.17 he cannot be fre fro the contagion of their sin 〈◊〉 the profanation of al the Holy things of God For these places doe evidently declare thâ—â— Paul the Apostles not only commaund to seperate from the Gentils but froÌ„ the Iewes who were the true Church of God now growing obstinate in sinne so practised themselves commaunding the Disciples training them vp by his example so to do so teaching vs to follow his example herein In the next place you proceed to declare by divers reasons such as they are that to joyne to the holy things when obstinate impenitent sinners partake in them is no sinne your first reason is For that in the old Testament ther was no Sacrifice appointed for this Ergo it is no sinne I deny the antecedent I declare the contrary by the examples of the tribe of Bemjamin consenting to the sinne of adultery committed vppon the Levites concubine Iudg. 19. 20. of the tribes of Israel fearing lest wrath should fal vppon them for suffering their brethren to make another altar to forsake the true worship of God as they suspected Iosh. 22. of Achans sin which brought wrath vppon the whole congregation VVherefore in the law the Lord did appoint a Sacrifice for the whole congregation aswell as for any particular person Levitt 4.13 A Second reason of yours is For that in the Old Testament the Godly are never reproved for being present at the ministration of holy things though wicked men were present but the Prophets reprove the Preists only for not Seperating the cleane from the vncleane wherto I answer that their communion was typical therfor persons typically cleane though wicked in their lives might come to Sacrifice yet not pollute others as I have already sufficiently declared in the former Section besides whereas the Prophets reprove the Preists the Saints in the new Testament succeed the carnal Preists as Spiritual Preists therby it followeth that the Saints in the new Testament are polluted by not distinguishing seperating the cleane from the vncleane see these places of Scripture Ezech. 22.26 compared with Revel 1.6 11.1 Iude vs 23.2 Cor. 6.17 But stil some may object that in the old Testament they did pray preach praise God yet notwithstaÌ„ding the faithful herein were not defiled if the wicked did joyne with them in communion thereof therfor now vnder the new Testament though meÌ„ do joyne in communion with open known sinne suffer known sinne yet may be saynts vnpolluted in communion this is the very pith warrow of your second abjection Mr. Bern. wherto I make answer many waies First I deny him to be a Saynt or that he ought to be esteemed a Saynt of vs that is impenâ—tent in any knowne sinne Knowne I say to him For I may know it to be a sinne yet bicause he knoweth it not so to be he cannot be accounted impenitent though he live in it sith ignorance is a sinne whereof a man repenteth generaly so in his generall repentance of sinnes done of ignorance that particular sinne is included Secondly I am to judg of another according to that which I know according to the rule of the word therin wherfor if i know any of my brethren to live in any sinne knowne to me I must admonish him prove it to him to be sinne require his repentance if he repent not to take withnesses theÌ„ to admonish him before withnesses so to convince it againe to his conscience if he repent not then to tel it to the Church wher
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
Seperate from persons ceremonialy vncleane 3. if the Apostles commaund Seperation from the Iewes members of that true Church of the old Testament refusing Christ rayling against him Then much more ought we to Seperate from you the members of false Churches refusing persecuting Christ in his members new Testament vnto death as they have felt 4. if Antichristims Gentils be in degree equall as they are in the Holy Ghosts account as I have formeâ—ly proved theÌ„ from you who are AntichristiaÌ„s visible members of false Churches ought Seperation to be made 5. although you are not excommunicate from the true Church whereof you never were yet you entertaine excommunicates from true Churches you are cages of every vncleane hateful bird if I must avoyd private familiar communion with excommunicate wicked persons then much more must I shun Spirituall holy communion with them except any man wil be so ridiculous as to say that the Hoâ—y Spiritual communion afordeth more liberty to sinne sinners then private civil communion in meate drinck c. so by your own confession al the places of Scripture alledged against you by vs may by just due proportion be applyed vppon you being as you stand in your constitution worship false Churches false worshippers persecuters of Christ his truth faithful witnesses To end al you say that it cannot be proved that it is sinn to heare the word preached to receave the Sacraments of one that hath converted him is called of the church wel Mr. Bern. I vnderstand your drift I wil give you an answer I say in your assemblies men do not convert to the true visiole faith of Christ taught in his word viz in the new Testament nor you ever converted man therto but pervert men from it as this book of yours al your railings against our testimony do plainly evince what you do invisibly the Lord knoweth every mans owne conscience can speak that feeleth but what say you of the Popish preachers do you think they convert none invisiblie what doe you gaine by this fancy neither they nor you convert to the faith or new Testament of Christ but they pervert meÌ„ from you you pervert men from the Seperation both hinder draw from the truth what you do invisiblie I seek not nor ought not to respect for visible walking yet know that we hold that ther are 7000. that are of the Lords Election in your false Churches So are ther in Rome it self Revel 18.4 whence did al the worthy witnesses of Christ arise as the waldenses Hus Prage Luther the Martyrs in Q. Maries dayes in EnglaÌ„d at other tymes in other places did they not come out of the bottomlesse pit of Antichristianisme being converted there yet I hope you wil not say that they might stil joyne to that ministery yet the ministers then had the calling of that church such as it was if therfor the argumeÌ„t be not good for them no more is it for you for you wil be proved to be AntichristiaÌ„ Ministers as truly in quality though not asmuch in quantity as they are this shal suffice for answer to this point The ninth Section Your next point wherto I will speak is the sixth in nomber which you hold error but I hold as a truth if it be wel conceaved it is this 6. That the word truly preached Sacraments rightly administred are no infallible tokens of a true Church I am sure you doe or may remember that proprium cum specie convertitur as the Logicians speak For example Every man is reasonablâ— every reasonable creature is a maÌ„ Now al I say is that the word truly preached the Sacraments duely administred are no properties of a true church For although this be true that whersoever the word is truly preached ex officio the Sacraments rightly administred ther is a true Church yet I denie the other viz That wheâ—soever ther is a true Church the word is truly preached the Sacraments are rightly administred For these two are not convertible but this I hold that a true Church powre to preach the word truly and administer the Sacraments duely are convertible and therefore that the powre of our Lord Iesus Christ given to the Church is an essential propertie of a true Church and therefore convertible with a true Church Now sometyme it falleth out that a true Church hath not the word ministerially preached nor the Sacraments administred namely when it wanteth Officers as it sometyme falleth out This point also is plaine enough if you have not loft your Logick therefore I leave it requiring your answer Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the ninth Section I cannot find in all Mr. Bern. book intituled the Sep Schisme any thing in opposition to this Section of my lette vnto him whereby I collect that he yeeldeth it as a truth it is not material to the point of Seperation any thing at al only the truth must be defended for the Author of truths sake that the Lord his truth may in all things be honored the summe of al this Section is thus much that as not the act of reasoning is the true propertie of a man but the faculty to reason Non ratiocinari sed rationale So not the actual preaching administring of the Sacraments but the powre of Christ to have vse al the holy things of God is the true property convertible in fallible token of a true Church For as every man although he be reasonable yet doth not actually vse reasoÌ„ at al tymes as namely being an infaÌ„t being a sleep being in a Lethargie or sincope So the true Church though it have alwayes powre to al the holy things yet actually it doth not vse the powre But I list not to speak much concerning this particular which is more Scholasticall then profitable the rather seing Mr. Bernard contendeth not about it The tenth Section The next position is according to your order the twelvth viz That every of our assemblies are false churches al our ministers false ministers our worship a faise worship you cal this en or I cannot beleeve you wherfor I declare them vnto you particularly in order after this manner But bicause your Wordes seem to import that you doe not defend all your assemblies to be true Churches all your Ministers true Ministers the worship of every assemblie to be a true worship for that I gesse by your covenant you exclude dumb Ministers the assemblies over which they are the worship offered vp by them Therefore I wil onely plead against your parish Church at worksap and your owne Ministerie and the worship offered vp by you for your people in the parish Church at worksap First for your assemblie I vse this reason to prove it no true Church wher the people are not Holy Elect faithful having not entered
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
drincking of wine performed by any persons after any manner or washing with water likewise true Sacraments I think you will not say it it is therefore necessary that there bee a concurrence of other matters viz That seing Sacraments are in relation and reference those references or relations must needes be annexed els they are not true Sacraments as a baptized person must baptize into the true Faith of Christ a person capable of baptisme A communion of men having title to the Lords Supper must break bread and drinck wine to remember Christ and shew forth his death till he come Therefore whereas you hold and teach that the whole bundel of the Antichristian constitution ministerie worship and Government of the assemblies are the Lords ordinances you teach a false word and whereas you being a false Church and Ministery doe baptize with water and break bread wine to remember a false Christ and a false Testament and a false Faith therein you declare plainly that you have not the true Sacraments and whereas in your Observe well you say Truly and Rightly respect grace in administring the VVord and Sacraments and therefore to preach the word Truly and Rightly to administer the Sacraments are no convertible signes of a true Church I answer That Truly and Rightly to administer doe also respect the outward manner of doing in the Essentiall relations spoken of before and not onely grace And so your Observe well is not worthy observation In your third essential propertie you wil needes have discipline no true convertible signe of a true Church Sir I confesse vnto you that the vse of the Censures of admonition excommunication which I suppose you cal discipline is not a convertible signe of a true Church but only powre title interest to vse them this title I deny you to have For how can you being in your constitution mighled with the world vnseperated poluted with so many Antichristian fornications as yet are extant in your assemblies have title to any of the Lords ordinances doth the Lord think you give his covenant new Testament purchased by the blood of Christ vnto such persons as trample vnder foot the whole Testament of Christ the ordinances therof hath the theef title to the true mans purse though he have the possession of it no more have you title to Chr. visibly though you vsurp him challendg him never so peremptorily wherefor to end this point of the properties of the true Church I say til you have Seperated your selves from al the wicked people Antichristian ordinances in your assemblies til you have vowed covenanted to embrace practise al the ordinances of Christs new Testament you can have no title or interest to the holy things of God vse them as long as you lift you abuse them Lastly to conclude this first part of the Section viz that your Churches are false churches I say to that which you object pag. 110. that many corruptions may be in a church yet it a true Church the constitution being true viz So long as they are not impenitent after conviction therfor Israel the Lords people so long as they retained their true cōstitution Ezech. 16.21.22 the men of Ephesus beleevers ignorant of the visible gifts of the Holy Ghost Act. 14.2 The Corinthians Saints though incest dronkennes fornication false doctryne contention much evil among them bicause they were not impenitent after twise admonition or conviction so forth of the rest but you wil confesse that the Prelates their faction are obstinate after conviction we avouch that the Puritanes are obstinate after conviction for they neither have answered nor can answer that we object against them therfor although you constitutiō had been true which was never yet your Church is become false being obstinate in sinne persecuting to death imprissonment losse of goods c. al that testify against her abhomin tions that this is a signe of a false Church read 2. King 17. Ierem. 3.8 Math. 23.37.38 Math. 21 33-43 Act. 19.9 The second point to be handled in this Section is that al your ministers are false ministers in handling whereof I wil proceed as in the former point of this Section viz First confirme the truth by arguments drawne from the Scriptures Secondly refute your fancyes wherby you would prove your ministery true Therefore in the first place to prove your ministers false Ministers I vse these Arguments The first Argument The true ministerie cannot be raised out of a false Church The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are false Churches Therfor the ministers of those assemblies Ecclesiastical are false ministers The ground of this argument is propounded confirmed in the 7. Section where it hath been proved by divers vndeniable reasons that Christs ministerial powre whereof one part is the calling of Ministers is not given by succession to the Pope Bbs. or presbytery but to the body of the congregation if they be but two or three So that seing the true Church is in nature being before the ministery the ministerie is but one of the holy things given to the Church one part of Christs powre delegated to the Church one branch of that true title interest which the L. Iesus the Bridegrome husband of the Church giveth to the Bride the Spowse of Christ the true Church The Ministerie therfor must needes follow the Church be after the Church be raised out of the church therefore the true Ministery of Christ is only where the true Church of Christ is so it cannot be in the astemblies Ecclesiastical of England being not the true Churches of Christ The second Argument The true ministerie hath a true office in execution wherof it is exercised Rom. 12.7 1. Cor. 12.5.28 Fph 4.11 The ministerie of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England have not a true office in execution wherof it is exercised Ergo The ministerie of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is not the true ministerie The foundacion of this argument is this viz that seing the ministerie of the Church of England ariseth out of the ministerie of the Church of Rome as a branch out of the root of the tree therfor it must needes be of the same nature kind with the ministerie of the Church of Rome For as a man begetteth a man one light commeth of another one Preist begetteth another in the old Testament so in ordination by succession one Minister maketh another therfor as the branch is of the same nature with the root the Sonne with the Father one candle light with another one Aaronical Preist with another So must the minister ordeyned be of the same nature office with him that ordeyneth him Seing therfor the ministerie of the Church of Rome is a popish Sacrificing Preisthood that is a false ministerie having a false office it must needes follow that the ministerie of the Church of England proceeding from the ministerie
powre to collect distribute the Churches Treasury to minister for the body meÌ„bers of the Church in other general services helpful to the body outward part this is evident enough if you wil not be blind wilfully For as in matter of mariage this is the very forme of mariage I take the formy wife I take the for my husband So in the matter of office this is the very forme therof we take the for our Pastor I take you for my flock so forth of the rest now ordination is nothing but the publishing of the officers election with prayer made for him admonition given to him to be faithful The Church doth the former which is al in all even the very forme the latter is but the lesser an accident without which the officer may be a true officer declare the contrarie to this if you can if not yeeld to the truth Ob. But you wil say the word mentioneth an Eldership which must ordeine Paul commandeth Titus to ordeyne Elders Tit. 1.5 1. Tim. 4.14 Ans. 1. The place of Timothie compared with 2. Timoth 1.6 yeeldeth this sence that Timothie by â—he exercise of prophecy wherein he was trayned by the imposition of the Apostles handes whereby the extraordinary gifts of tongs prophecy were then vsually conferred had an excellent grace so the word is in the originall conferred vppon him But let it be granted that Timothie had a ministerie conferred vnto him surely it must needes be the office of an Evangelist what is that to an ordinary Elders office Paull only the Apostles could create Evangelists Further let it be yeelded you that Timothie was made a Bishop of Ephesus by the Eldership of Ephesus the Eldership in that action did nothing but that which the Church appointed them to for the effecting wherof they had powre authority from the Church who is the Fountaine of al the powre that any officer hath Ans. 2. To the place of Titus I thus answer that Titus ther is not commaunded to ordeyne ministers but to constitute Elders For the word is not to ordeyne or to lay on hands but to constitute if you vnderstand the Greek tongue you wil acknowledg that I say to be true now to constitute an Elder signifieth Election approbation ordinatioÌ„ not ordination only as the objection importeth but you know or els you are a sworne slave to the Prelates that the Church hath powre to Elect approve her Elders yet Titus is heer commaunded to doe it whence wee must needes conclude that Titus only should teach direct the Churches in constituting of her Elders according to the Apostolique institution which what it was Titus being an Evangelist wel acquainted with the Apostles course could wel tel this must needes be the sence of this place except you have any thing to say against it which we pray you let vs heer if ther be any thing you seeme in this point to distingnish the calling of Elders as if ther were two manners or formes of calling Elders ordinary extraordinary I know no such thing therfore I leave that till I see it expounded Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the thirteenth Section Al this thirteenth Section hath for the subject matter of it the ordination or making of ministers the question of it is this viz whither a company of faithful people gathered into the name of Christ by the voluntary covenant of the new Testament have not powre of themselves to create their owne Pastors Deacons Although that which hath been spoken concerning the seaventh Section may fully sufficiently satisfie al this doubt yet I thought meet to add certaine argumeÌ„ts of plaine evidence for the further declaration hereof that al scruples shifts may be taken away The first Argument They which have powre to enter into to assume the New Testament have also powre to assume al the ordinances of the new Testament so by necessary consequent the ministery Two or three faithful people have powre to enter into to assume the new Testament of Christ Ergo two or thre faithful people have powre to assume al the ordinances of the new Testament therfor the ministery The Minor only is doubtful which may thus be confirmed Gal. 3 14-16 wher the Apostle saith plainly that the promises were made to Abraham his seed viz to the Faithful vs. 16. that the blessing of Abraham came vppon the beleeving gentils vs. 14. that these promises blessing is the covenant or new Testament vs. 15. wherevppon it followeth that seing the Faithful have the blessing the promises the new Testament therfor they have the powre of enjoying the ministery For the ministery is one part or ordinance of the new Testament The second Argument They that have Christ with Christ all things els they that have al things aperteyning to life Godlines they that have the promise of this life of the life to come have the powre to assume the ministery for that is a part of Godlines But the Faithful be they but two or thre have with Christ al things els Rom. 8.32 have the promise of life Godlines 2. Pet. 1.3 have the promise of this life of the life to come 1. Timoth. 4.8 Ergo The Faythfull though but two or three have powre to assume the Ministery The third Argument They who have powre to examine elect their Officers have also powre to pray for them to commaund them to minister which is ordination But the Scripture teacheth plainly that the Faithfull have powre to Elect and choose their owne Officers as Deacons Act. 6. one to bee an Apostle Act. 1.26 Elders Act. 14. also to approve them Act. 6.3 1. Timoth. 3.10 and you confesse no lesse your self Ergo the Scripture teacheth plainly you by consequent grant indeed though you deny in wordes that the Faithful have powre to pray for ther officers Elect to commaund them to administer that is ordination The Fourth Argument They that have powre to make a Church have powre to make a minister or ministers For they that can doe the greater can do the lesse Two or thre Faithful people have powre to make a Church Ergo two or thre Faithful people have powre to make ministers The reason of this argument is for that the Church is the body of Christ the Spowse of Christ the ministery is but one part of the body one Servant of the Spowse one of the ornaments of the Church The Minor is plaine For two or three Faithful people have Christ Iesus have the promises have the holy things of David which are Faithful have the blessing of Abraham being Abrahams seed furthermore the Apostle Heb. 8 10-12 expounding what the new Testament is teacheth that they that have the Lawes of the Lord put in their mindes written in their harts are the people of God have God
wel to follow the Holy Ghosts prophecy Revel 17.16 even to make the whore of Babylon desolate and naked to eate her Flesh and burne her with fire and not to suffer her wares that is her vessels of wood Ivory Brasse Iron marble to be bought any more which I am perswaded shal in due tyme be accomplished that as the goodly buildings of the Abbayes Monasteries Nunries are already destroyed made barnes stables swineslyes jakes so shal it be done with al the Idol Temples when the howre of their visitation shal come whereas you object for the justifying of the vse of the Idol Temples that seing Antichrist sitteth in the Church of God that therfor when the Idol Temples were built the Church took possession of them to keep possession for the Lord in his creatures therby concluding a lawful vse of them now for the Church restored I answer you your ground is faulty therfor your building tottereth the place of the Apostle 2. Thes 2.4 wher it is said that Antichrist sitteth in the Temple of God is falsely by you conceaved interpreted for it doth not import that as you would have it Antichrists Church the true Church of Christ are one the same that the same company of men can be and are both the true visible Church of Christ at that same tyme the Church of Antichrist this is impossible for the true Church is not the false Church But this is the meaning viz either that Antichrist shal sitt in the consciences of men which is properly the Temple of God Or that Antichrist shall arise vp out of that company of men which once were the Temple of God as Rome was or that the Church being true in the constitution Antichrist shal foyst into it by litle and litle his false ministery VVorship and Government as experience teacheth he hath done For a true Church may have Antichristian ordinances retayned raised vp in it this being the true meaning of the Apostle how can you hence conclude soundly that the true Church tooke possession of the Temples which the false Church of Antichrist built Seing the true Church is not the false Church seing that the temples were built in the palpable darknes of grosse popery some of them perhaps dedicated to heathen Idols some of them to Antichristian Idols as ther Hee shee Saints al of them to Devils For if Ieroboams Preists were appointed for Devils 2. Chron. 11.15 if the Antichristian preists are the Spirit of Devils Revel 16.14 the worship of Antichristians the worship of Devils Revel 9.20 the Antichristian Churches the habitation of Devils Revel 18.2 then the Temples are dedicated to Devils not that they intended so to dedicate them but for that they are so indeed the Lord accounting that to be done to the Devil which is not done to him as he hath commaunded the Devill substituting himself in Gods place when men go a whoring after ther owne inventions Therefor the Apostle saith plainly that the Gentils Sacrifice to Devils 1. Cor. 10.20 to conclude this point therfor so to leave you to meditate vppon these things Seing the Gentils Sacrifice to Devils seing the Antichristians worship Devils seing Ieroboams preists were appointed for Devils yet al these intended to worship God even the true God then it followeth that though the Antichristians did intend to dedicate their Temples to the true God which yet is not granted neverthelesse they were dedicated to Devils therfor are to be raced downe converted to the habitation of Iim Zijm Satyres Shrich â—â—yles Raveas as the Prophet speaketh Esay 34 8-15 The eighteenth Section Your first point now commeth in the last place to be considered viz. 1. In seperating from al the reformed Churches you say we do il Let vs consider what we hold Surely we say the Churches are of two sorts false Churches such as yours of worksop is al others of like fashion 2. true Churches those also of two sorts pure wherin no open knowne sinne is suffered corrupt wherin some one or more knowne sinne is tolerated to the true Churches which are pure wee may wil joyne to the true Churches which are corrupt we cary our selves thus First we labor to discover their faults vnto them admonishing them to reforme which wee are bound to doe bicause they are our brethren Secondly if they wil not reforme after we have convinced their errors vnto them we depart from them lest wee should partake with their sinnes this is our judgment practise if you can reprove it let vs heer from you wee pray you Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the eighteenth Section Heer I desire the Gentle Reader not to be offended that wee endevouring to walk in the liberty of the gospel do not tie our selves to any Church or Churches whatsoever but only to the rules of Gods word therfor howsoever it may seem odious that wee Seperate from al churches yet the causses being indifferently considered the matter wil seme reasonable for we Seperate from al Churches vppon several reasons 1. From some such as are the English Churches we Seperate for the Falsehood of them that is a just cause in any indifferent mans judgment 2. from other such as are the Reformed Churches wee Seperate not for that they are false but for that being true they are corrupt herein our Seperation is not total but for a tyme til we have performed our dutyes vnto them wheÌ„ we have therfor admonished them of their corruptions they repent then we joyne in communion with them if they repent not wee leave them to the Lord we must needes keep our selves vnspotted take heed that we partake not with other mens sinnes The nintenth Section And now Mr. Bern. suffer me a litle to deale with you as with one of whome I have thought so wel as I have done it greeveth my Soule for you to see you so straungely seduced by Sathan so violently carryed in your boysterous robustious disposition against the truth the professors therof it hath greeved me heretofore to see you arrogant proud ambitious cariage preferring your self in place before men both more auncient holy learned then your self in the judgment of al that know you them it hath greeved mee to hear such calumnies as you have in the bitternes of your wrath vttered against divers of vs which I could relate to your eternal infamy but I spare you it hath greeved me to heare your formality that you are become an absolute conformitaÌ„t in judgment that you would be so in practise if some persons hindered you not it greeveth me exceedingly to see some Letters of yours wherein you your Disciples lying at the advantage take all things in the evil part pervert misconstrue mens writings manifesting therein much perversnes of Spirit it greeveth mee above all that you should support the
Protestants are prospered in their course Ergo The English Protestants have the truth I answer That this is false doctrine For the wiseman saith Eccles 9 1-3 That prosperity or adversity are no signes of love or hatred Ierem. 12.1 2. that the wicked are in prosperity and 1. Pet. 4.17 judgment beginneth at Gods howse This your reason therfor is most absurd false is fit to breed Atheisme overthrow the whole truth of the Scriptures but let vs see what judgments are vppon the Seperation you frame them thus If Mr. Bolton that Apostated did hang himself if Mr. Harison Mr. Browne did differ one fel back if Mr. Barrow Mr. Greenwood for calling you serpents generations of Wipers were martyred by the persecuting Prelates if Mr. Iohnson pronounced excommunication against his brother if the Church excommunicated the Father if Mr. Burnet died of the Plague if Mr. Smyth was delivered twise from the Pursivant was sick allmost to death doubted of the Seperation for 9. monethes space then the Seperation is not the truth But al these things befel Mr. Bolton Mr. Browne Mr. Harison Mr. Iohnsons Mr. Burnet Mr. Smyth Ergo The seperation is not the truth I answer The Churches of England have had thousand thousands of such accidents as these are befalling their Officers and Leaders and yet as it were folly in vs to alledg them against you as the Papists doe so it is no wisdom but weaknes of judgment in you to mention them in your book against vs VVhat is it good reasoning to say Iudas hanged himself Christ was Crucified for blasphemy Demas embraced the world Nicholas the Deacon proved an Heretique Paull and Barnabas fel out Paull chardged Peter and Barnabas with dissembling Peter denyed Christ All the Apostles were put to death for heresy Ergo the Christian Religion is 〈◊〉 bee false yours false yet this is your goodly reason if this bee a good argument wher is your Faith 〈◊〉 But in this Likelyhood you have a sting at me in particular Mr. Ber. charging me with divers vntruths which I wil manifest 1. That I doubred 9 months I acknowledg but that ever I did acknowledg the seperation for truth seperated from the English assemblies then returned againe vnto them which you say I do vtterly deny I appeale to the towne of Ganesbrugh those ther that knew my footesteps in this matter therfor herein I indite you as a publique slaunderer 2. VVhereas you say I became satisfied at Coventree after conference had with certayne Ministers and herevppon kneeled downe and praised God I answer I did not conferre with them about the seperation as you they know wel inough in your consciences but about withdrawing from true Churches Ministers and VVorship corrupted VVherein I receaved no satisfaction but rather thought I had given instruction to them and for kneeling downe to praise God I confesse I did being requested to performe the duty at night after the conference by the Ministers but that I praised God for resolution of my doubts I deny to death and you therein are also a slaunderer I praised God for the quiet peaceable conference such like matters desired pardon of the L. for ignorances errors weaknes of judgment any disordered caryage if the ministers that heard my prayers praises of God did misconstiue my meaning let them look vnto it 3. VVhereas you impute an absurdity to mee as yet vnanswered viz that I should affirme the spit whereon the passeove was rosted was the Altar I say seing the passeover was a sacrifice Marc. 14.12 that every sacrifice hath an altar either the spit was the altar or els it had no altar Now â—el me which is the Likeliest of the two if this be a reasonable speech that the wooden crosse was the Altar whereon Christ was sacrified why may not by a good reason the spit be the altar of the passeover the sacrifice was not slayne vppon the altar but it was burnt vppon the altar so that was not the altar wherevppon the passeover was killed but wherevppon it was burnt or rosted Mr. Bern. I doe confidently affirme against you that the spit was as much the altar to the passeover as the crosse was an altar to Christ let me heare what you in your best Logick can say against it The 7. Likelyhood against the Sep. is framed thus The truth increaseth in short space into a multitude The Seperation doth not increase but is kept vnder Ergo the Seperation is not the truth I answer you Mr. Bern. that this is but a popish argument Christ saith his Flock is but a litle Flock but how very many yeeres hath the cause of the Seperation had il successe Forsooth 20. or 30. yeeres alas as Mr. Be. what increase hath the Prelacy gotten in the world this hundreth veeres they say that is the truth against the Presbytery what increase hath puritanisme gotten this 20. or 30. yeeres in England yet they say that is the truth against the Prelacy is not the cause of the Reformists almost dead and buryed but know Mr. Bern. that the cause of the Seperation being the same in the mayne groundes and essentiall parts with the Reformed Churches it hath had infinite increase ever since Luthers tyme and whereas you object heer that wee leave our country without leave I answer that you know the Law of the Land doth banish vs all and if Abraham did lawfully passe from one country to another people Iâ—se no reason that wee may not doe so though Israel could not get from Egipt nor Iudah from Babylon being deteyned by violence in captivity yet the Lord in working ther deliverance declareth that he will have his people depart wher they may freely professe it without let or disturbance besides you doe pervert the Prophet Ezechiell his speeeh Cap. 3.6 For was not Ionas sent to Nineveh were not the Iewes caryed into captivity were not the Apostle sent to al Nations did al the Corinths speak with straunge Tonges is it vnlawful to send men to convert the Pagans but the meaning of Ezechiell is that though the Iewes vnderstand his preaching yet they wil not beleeve the straungers viz them of Tyrus Sidon as Christ saith would sooner beleeve him then the Iewes for a Prophet is not without honor save in his owne country so the place is misconstrued by you Finally whereas you object that the L. leaveth a curse behind vs in the Land I say that is an argument that it is the truth we professe which bicause it is not intertained doth therfor prove the savour of death vnto death and hardeneth the hart of that people where it hath been offered and is refused thus much breefly of your froth In the next place you bring vs reasons of more force then bare probabilityes wherby you confesse that your 7. Likelyhoods are of litle force which I desire
the reader to take notice of that the alledging of them by Mr. Ber. argueth an ill mynd seing he confesseth them to be of smal force against our cause The first reason against sep may be framed thus That way is not the truth which teacheth to renounce the constitution ministery worship Government of the English assemblies Ecclesiasticall as false so in respect thereof to seperate from them al spiritual communion with them to entertayne the true constitution ministery worship and Government of the Apostolique institution The way of the seperation teacheth thus much Ergo the way of the seperation is not the truth I answer if the scriptures approve this which we teach of you of our selves then is your arg worth nothing now whither the seperation be the truth or not I refer me to the scriptures wherby I desire that which I have written may be examined if it bee sound sound let it be intertayned if not follow the truth whatsoever it be whereas you say heer that men in seperating from you must cast of the word which begat them I deny it you are a slaundeter herin For we retaine al truth that you have we reject only your Antichristianisme for acknowledging your Faith repentance baptisme false I say it is necessary but vnderstand that we speak of your things that are visible leave things invisible to the Lord for that objection you make from our owne confession that we say our Seperation is only for corruptions I say it is truth but yet know that your corruptions are essential and effential corruptions corrupt the essence of things make them false viz. when the matter is essentially corrupted or the forme c. as a mule procreated of an horse an asse Now such is your Church Ministery worship Government as is already proved sufficiently The 2. reason against Sep is framed thus That way is not the truth which teacheth the professors thereof to entertayne and joyne with open wicked obstinate sinnes sinners The Seperation Teacheth men so to doe Ergo The Seperation is not the truth I answer That the truth may be the truth though men that professe it walk never so wickedly in it neither doth it follow bicause the Churches of the Seperation walk corruptly therfor the Seperation is not the truth you know Mr. Bern. that this is but sophistry hereby you might prove the Doctryne of Christ not to be the truth bicause the Corinths had contentions incest fornication dronkennes heresy among them what say you to your selves who have as many thousand obstinate sinnes sinners in the land as ther be men of the Seperation among vs is your way therfor error For the force of this argument therfor I referre mee to your owne conscience to every indifferent mans censure VVel Let vs see what obstinate sinnes sinners are in the Separation the sinnes are these as you recken them vp 1. vnthankfulnes 2. spiritual vncharitablenes 3. abusing the Scriptures 4. Obstinacy in schisme 5. Rayling scoffing 6. false opinions or Brownisme the persons persisting in these sinnes are you say obstinate wicked Let vs handle these things in order 1. Vnthankfulnes to God that regenerated vs by the word among you vnto the Church of Englād our mother that bare vs in calling her an harlot I answer what truth the Lord hath wrought inwardly in vs we do thankfully aknowledg I for my part do professe that in your assemblies I receaved the seedes of true faith invisible which if I had dyed not knowing the Seperation should I doubt not through Gods mercy have been effectual to my justification salvatiō in Christ but this was so invisibly judging according to the inward feeling of my hart not according to the outward censure of the word For though I could truly judg so of my self out of myne owne feeling yet I deny other men could so judg of me judging truly according to the Scriptures this I suppose none of the Seperation wil deny This is the thankfulnes which we can yeeld do yeeld to God dayly but for our visible conversion we learned it not from you therfor we deny any thākfulnes to be due vnto you for it neither do we acknowledg the church of England our mother therin but we say she is barrē beareth no children vnto the L. in respect thereof 2. Sinne you impute to vs is spiritual vncharitablenes apearing first in censuring 3. sorts of persons among you 1. The ignorant as blinded by the God of the world 2. judging them that know the Seperation do not yeeld vnto it as fearfull persons worldlings 3. such as tasting of it falling back are censured as Apostates by vs wel Mr. Bern. if the way of the Seperation be the truth as it is proved to be then I know not why it is vncharitablenes thus to censure you For it is but the censure of the holy Ghost in the scriptures in censuring of you herein wee manifest no more vncharitablenes toward you then the Scriptures teach take heed you do not blaspheme the scriptures censure through vs. Secondly our vncharitablenes appeareth say you in our vngodly desire to have the word vtterly extingnished among you Egyiptian darknes to come over you rather thē it should be preached by your false ministery I āswer you by making a demaund which is this of two sinnes viz of murther or adultery which is to be chosen I suppose you wil answer neither of them that truly so say I for this particular if it be demaunded whither wee would that the word should be vtterly extingnished or preached by your false ministery I make answer wee would neither of them but wee desire both that your false ministery were dissolved that the word might by the Kings commaundement or allowance or permission bee preached throughout his dominions by men fitted therto wherefore in this point I challendg you for an vncharitable slaunderer of vs and heer you digresse to prove that the word may bee preached without a true constitution of a Church that preaching is more necessary then a true constitution I confesse it vnfeynedly most hartily neither came the contrary into the thoughts of the brethren of the Seperation I suppose For certainly the true constitution must bee taught men must bee brought to the faith before the Church can bee constituted this is it which wee must labor for that first the word be preached by men of able gifts that men bee taught converted to the Faith then they bee established into the new Testament of Christ but you have done doe practise the contrary First you have established thē into an Antichristian communion constitution jumbling together al the people of the Land of what Religion or condition soever then you set over them a false ministery then teach them stil to
hold retayne that Antichristian constitution ministery worship government placed over them wholy to reject any reformation offered in this your disgression you â—unne out into another calumny viz that some of vs are so in dislike with your Church as that wee would rather intertayne popery then returne to you againe For my self I confesse my thoughts speeches have been are to this purpose that whensoever I returne to keep communion with the English asseÌ„blies acknowledging them true Churches their Ministery true then must I also of necessity acknowledg Rome to be a true constituted Church their ministery true For your Church ministery are of the same nature kind though of divers degrees of corruption yours being much refined from infinite drosse which is stil remayning with them Now if I should returne to succession so acknowledg the East churches of the Grecians and the VVest Churches of Rome her Daughters wherof England is one for Rome is the Mother-Church to be true Churches yet I would make my choise ther to joyne wher are fewest corruptions so rather returne to you then to Rome therefore herein I suppose also you are but a slaunderer in advancing a false report Psalm 15.3 wherefore brefly I say to desire your reformation the truth to be practised among you is neither hatred of you as you strongly plead nor any vncharitable desire to have the truth extinguished and popery intertayned as you most vncharitably suggest vnto your Reader Thirdly our vncharitablenes appeareth you say in this that we envy that good things prosper with you wretched man that you are thus to slaunder calumniate vs falsely I professe that I wish from my Soule that every Formalist in the Land were a Reformist that every Reformist were of the Seperation this is al the hurt that wee wish vnto you whereas you object that the Seperation this is al the hurt that wee wish vnto you whereas you object that the Seperation scoffe at your Religious exercises and your conversion I doe detest scoffing if I my self have at any tyme scoffed I doe proclayme my repentance for it vnto you the whole Land yet know that scoffing at Baals preists was lawfull in Elias if you cal scoffing an Eironie neither doe we scoffe at any thing that is good but at your irrecoverable stifnes in your corrupted courses neither is this eiâ—onie used as a mock to disgrace you but as a meanes to reforme you as Elias his eironie was againe you say wee pray not for your Ministers but wish discontentment that men may thereby come to the Seperation I answer wee pray for the Ministers and people that they may repent and yeeld to the truth and wee wish that men may bee discontented with their corrupt and evil wayes which is the high way to repentance but wee wish no man through discontentment of poverty or reproach or disgrace to fall from any truth as it seemeth you have done from Puritanisme to the Prelates faction conformity Further you vrge vncharitablenes in hasty excommunications for smal matters I answer not for others but for our particular Church of the Seperation that wee doe not vse excommunication as a matter of hatred but of love neyther doe wee excommunicate any man but for finne convinced and that after once and twise admonition and that is not hastily and whereas you teach vs not to excommunicate for every sinne wee doe practise your advertisement but if you wil have vs retaine in our communion any sinner willfully impenitent and peevishly obstinate sinne wee answer that wee abhorre your counsel and wee think such persons fitter for your Antichristian Synagogues then for the true Church of Christ which is a communion of Saints only Againe you censure the Seperation of vncharitablenes for excommunicating them that heer the word of your Ministers I deny it except they continue impenitent in that sinne and then indeed wee doe and the reason is bicause wee hold according to the truth that you are false Churches and false Ministers and that wee ought not to have any Spirituall communion with Idols and doe you think that impenitency in Idolatry is not worthy excommunication and doe you think that impenitency in Idolatry is not worthy excommunication and for that you say it is no sinne to heare the true word of any man I ask whither you think it lawfull to heare the Popish preists preach to pray with them if it bee vnlawful then you are answered and the Lord forbiddeth to heare false Prophets Deut. 13.3 the Apostle willeth to Seperate from such as teach false Doctryne 1. Timoth. 6 3-5 to reject an Heretique after once and twise admonition Tit. 3.10 and not to give entertayment to the false teachers 2. Iohn 10. Heer I omit your gibe of the annoyning which is the Holy Ghost that the Apostle saith the Faithful have to teach them all truth whereby the brethren of the Seperation presume as you say to teach wanting gifts referre you to the Apostles speech 1. Cor. 14. wher he willeth al the brethren to endevor to prophecy teacheth them that they may prophecy one by one wil you to remember that this gibe of yours falleth vppon Paul the Holy Scriptures the Spirit of God Christ Iesus the mediator or of the new Testament which hath established the exercise of Prophecy in the Church for all the brethren that have gifts ther is no man that doth beleeve but he can speak Finally this want of love which you impute to vs I wonder how it is bettered amoÌ„g you who persecute one another so hatefully as you do as the Prelates their factioÌ„ do devoure the reformists ther faction So as it seemeth you are blind at home though you can see so dragon-like abroad 3. Synne you impute to vs is misaledging wresting the Scriptures instances you give none onely you say that some have accused some of the principals of vs but doth it follow therefore that the accusation is true Christ was accused for blasphemy was hee therefore a blasphemer But if you meane that the Ministers in the conference the conference of Coventre with my self have accused mee thereof I answer it was before I knew the Seperation as you they can tel what is this to the Seperation but for their chardging me with wresting the Scriptures I answer that wherein I have wrested the Scripture it is of ignorance I doe not presently remember the particulars Let them bee produced to the world I desire no savor if it bee my sinne I will confesse it but neither doe I know it neither do you prove it only you say it whither you must be beleeved on your bare word that are so common a slaunderer in this your book I referre mee to the Censure of every man that is not partiall and doteth not vppon you 4. Synne you chardg vs with is
sore to denounce judgment against the sinne another to pronounce the sentence of absolution condemnation which Christ Iesus alone into whose hands the Father hath committed al judgment shal do which for any man to vsurp is to intrude into Christs throne seate of mercy justice But if ther be any in the assemblies either forward preacher professor that seeth this truth of the Seperation yeeldeth not in obedience to forsake that Antichristian way to walk in the truth let him know that seing his hart coÌ„demneth him God is greater then his hart blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth thus humbly hartily desiring the Lord to shew the light of his truth more more vppon the Land at the length vtterly to disperse al that myst darknes that overshadweth obscureth the truth I cease writing wishing all welfare to the vpright hearted Reader FINIS A Lettre written to Mr. A. S. By Iohn Smyth Aister S. beinge requested by Mr. H. your kind frend myne as also out of M myne owne inclination to doe you good whome I heare to be stronglie caried out of the true way in respect of the auncient acquaintance which I had with you in the vniversitie of Cambridge I thought good at this tyme in few lines to salute you hoping that you wil interpret this which I doe in good part I desier you would communicates this my writinge with Mr. B. our ould Frende with whomesoever els you shal see cause that you al whome I take to be the Lords people yet in Babilon may come forth of her that ye be not pertaker of her sinnes that ye receave not of her plagues you wrote to Mr. H. certaine reasons provinge your Church a true Church your ministerie a true ministerie this Letter Mr. H. hath lost so the particulars ther of he cannot perfectlie remember you wrote another Letter after vnto him wherin you triumphed before the victorie I have adventred in this writinge to declare vnto you both the insufficiencie of such your reasons for your Church ministerie as Mr. H. remembreth as also the substance of that truth which we professe for the which wee suffer bonds losse of goods banishment death according as the Lord allotteth to vs Mr. S. I pray you be perswaded that that which we do we doe it not rashlie nor vppon discontentment nor in pride or vppon any sinister respect no we cal God to record to our foules that the evidence of the truth workinge vppon our consciences through the Lords vnspeakeable mercie even contrarie to our rebellious nature hath mightelye convinced violentlie caried vs to this truth we professe practise heare our groundes then give sentence waigh al things indifferently cast prejudice into nether ballance examine what I say by the worde leane not to any mans opinion I dare adventure my credit that then the light of this truth wils shine in your hart then I pray you put it not away so with this preface I beginne to lay downe the groundes of our cause which is also the Lords everlastinge truth the groundes are these 1. The covenant the promise Christ is given to Abraham the Father of the faithful to al those that are of the faith of Abraham to no other as is plaine by these Scriptures Gen. 17.7 Levit. 26.9.12 Luk. 1.72.74 Rom. 4.10 12.23.24 Iohn 8.39.44 Mat. 3.9 Gal. 3.7.9.16 2 This covenant is not limitted at the pleasure of men but it is absolute no Prince nor State can either ad to it or take ought froÌ„ it or alter the least part of it but God giveth whole Christ al the promises the whole covenant on his behalf to the faithful the faithful on the other side promise to be Gods people wholly to deny themselves to obey God in every one of his precepts even the least though it cost them their lives GeÌ„ 17.1 Deut. 12.32 Mat. 22.32 Rom. 8.32 2. Cor. 1.20 Mat. 10 37-39 3. Two or thre faithful men have this covenant promises Christ given vnto them immediatlie from heaven not by meanes of any State Prince Priest Prelate whatsoever but whersoever two or thre faithful people arise in the world in what countrie or nation soever at what tyme soever there then the covenant promises Christ is theirs with them 2. Cor. 6.17.18 Mat. 18.20 28.20 Act. 4.12 Heb. 8.10 Apoc. 1.11 14.9 â—2 1. Pet. 1. 1 Act. 2.39 Aproc 17.13.14 4. These faithfull people whersoever they arise in the VVorld must be Seperated from the VVorld and from all vncleanenes whatsoever For the faithfull must not draw the yoake with vnbeleevers righteousnes can have no fellowship with vnrighteousnes light can have no communion with darknes Christ can have no concord with Behall that is with a Societie that is without his yoke the beleever can have no part with the vnbeleever and the Temple of God can have no agreement with Idols 2. Corinth 6.16.18 Apoc. 14 9-11 Deut. 22.10 7.2.3.6 Act. 19.9 Ephe. 5.7.11 5. A few faithfull people standing in confusion with vnbeleevers vnseperated from them being one bodie with them in that estatestanding are not a true church of Christ which I prove by divers reasons 1. The faithful have the Spirit of Christ the vnbeleevers have the Spirit of satan how can these two contrarie Spirits these two contrarie sorts of persons combyne together 2. Cor. 6.14.15.16 2. Ther is enimity put betwixt these two sortes of persons ergo they cannot combine together see Gen. 3.15 3. The covenant promises Christ is the faithfuls only how can vnbeleevers have any part in them 6. Seing the faithfull being but few have the covenant promises Christ therefore they have powre to all the meanes whereby they shall enjoy Christ as the word seales of the covenant the ministerie the powre of binding and losing for all these are parts of the covenant they are the promises they are the meanes of pertaking Christ Roman 3.2 and 4.11 Act. 6.5 and 14.23 Math. 18.18.20 1. Cor. 3.21.22 2. Pet. 1.3.4 1. Tim. 4.8 7. As they have the powre of all these things so they are commaunded to vse al these helpes and are bound to obey the Lord in using all these meanes for enjoying Christ therefore they are bound to vse the word the seales of the covenant the ministerie the censures for their owne mutuall good Deuter. 5.31.32.33 and 6.17 and 12.32 1. Corint 14.37 1. Tim. 5.21 6.13.14 Gal. 3.15 Iam. 1 19-22.1 Cor. 11.24 25. Act. 6.3 Heb. 13.17 Mat. 18.15.17 8. The faithfull must be Seperated from the wicked and vnbeleevers 2. Corinth 6.17 They must Seperate wicked men from among them by the censures 1. Corinth 5.13 Math. 18.15.17 2. Thessa 3.6.14 They must chose aprove ordeine their owne Elders Deacons Act. 6.3 14.23 1. Tim 3.10 6.13.14 As wel as vse the word and
seales of the covenant 9. If the faithfull either doe not Seperate themselves from the wicked or not Seperate the vnbeleevers from them if they still mingle with them they forfeite the covenant they consent to all the sinne of the vnbeleevers to all their prophanation of the Holy things seing God hath given them power to reforme themselves and to keepe all wicked persons from among their communion by the censures of admonition and excommunication Apoc. 18. 4 Eph. 5.7.11 1. Cor. 5.6 Mat. 13.33 1. Cor. 12.17.22 Levit. 17.19 Mat. 22.39 Mat. 18.15.17 10. If Kings and States forbid the faithfull to vse any of these helps and meanes which God hath given and commaunded them to vse they are to lose their lives rather then to forbeare bicause they are bound to obey God rather then men Act. 4.19 Deut. 12.32 11. If Princes and States commaund the Church and faithfull to entertaine any other ordinances then these before rehearsed they are not to obey but rather to leese their lives 1. Tim. 6.13.14 Mat. 16.24.25 Apoc. 22.18.19 Mr. S. these are the very grounds and principles of our cause which is the Lords truth there are divers other particulars which I thincke not fitt to relate vnto you They may be after discovered vnto you vppon occasion Now I come to answere your reasons for your Church and ministerie First you say you have a true church your reason is for that you have the word truly preached and the Sacraments duely administred I confesse that wheresoever these thinges are found there is a true Church but I denie the word to bee truly Preached and the Sacraments duely administred in any parish Church of England which I manitest vnto you after this manner 1. First the people pertakinge in the seales of the covenante in prayer and in the communion of Holy thinges are not a people Seperated from all the vnbeleevers open sinners of the Land but stand still in conlusion with them submittinge to all the false Government of the Prelates c. Such a people so standinge have no title to the covenant to Christ to the promises see the first ground supra 2. Secondly this people so mingled with the wicked of the Land cannot be a true Church seinge it is impossible for them to be conjoyned combyned together into one bodie as the true Church is For as two disparate seeds viz of an horse and an asse doe not produce either an Horse or an Asse but a mule Genes 36.24 So of the two contrarie seeds of the VVoman and of the Serpent Genes 3.15 can not proceede a true Church but some thing of another nature viz a false Church VVherefore in the false Church cannot the word be truly preached the Sacraments duely administred 3. Thirdly there is one only true forme of a visible Church Ephes 4.4 One bodie which bodie is called Christ 1. Corinth 12.12 Galat. 3.16 This one body hath one Spirit Ephes 4.4 This one body guided by this one Spirit hath one Lord. Ephes 4.5 VVhich Lord is Christ the onely Lawgiver It hath also one faith which is the faith expressed in the writings of the Apostles it hath also one Baptisme whereby men are admitted into this faith submitted vnto this Lord baptized into this Spirit incorporated into this bodie and so have one God and Father one hope of life everlastinge to whome the promises and covenant is given Now in the assemblies of England there are divers Faythes one off the Puritanes so miscalled another of the Prelates a third of the Papistes that come to Churche a fourth of the ignorant persons go they cannot be one they denye themselves to be of the same body with Papists Atheists Prelates witches conjurers theves murtherers blasphemers drunckerds vsurers c. Therfor they are not the true body of Christ the true Church of God therfore all the holy things are profaned when they are ther administred how then can they be said as you plead to be truly administred in the assemblies of England 4. Add herevnto that the most forward Preachers Professors of the Land do not practize according to that which they know the Lord requireth to be practised viz in admitting of al to the Holy things good bad in neglecting the censures vtterly in setching the Ministers calling from the prelates whome they hold Antichristiā in submitting to their Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which is vnlawful therby yealding their consciences to other Lawgivers then Christ For their cannōs Christs lawes are contrary how can we say that they that thus doe sinning against their consciences in this manner are Seperated from al sinne touch no vncleane thing so how can they be said in that constitution the true Church so how can the word be said truly preached the Sacraments duely administred in that estate Thus Mr. S. you see your Church is proved not to be true your signes of a true church therfore not to be found in your assemblies Your second point foloweth viz that your ministerie is a true ministerie I pray you how can ther be a true miuisterie where is a false Church doth not the true ministerie arise out of the true Church can there be a true ministerie a false Church I know not how these things can stand together But let vs heare your arguments to prove your true ministerie First you say ther is a true ministerie bicause men are converted thereby I answere conversion is no signe of a true ministerie For Prophets Preists Apostles Evangelists ordinary Prophets Pastors private men private women have converted Iohn 4.39 Phillip 1.14.15 1. Cor. 14.24.31 Act. 9.1 11.19.21 Ergo conversion apertaineth not only to ministers nither is it a proper effect or adjunct of a true ministerie Secondly let your argument be framed after a true forme it wil be this whosoever converteth soules is a true Pastor The ministers of the church of England convert soules go they are true Pastors I make another argument whosoever converteth soules is an Apostle 1. Cor. 9.2 The ministers of England convert soules go they are Apostles The like arguments may be made to prove the ministers of England Priests extraordinary Prophets evangelistes yea Christ himselfe Mat. 11.5 Ierm 23.22 Malach. 4.6 Act. 8.12 Now Mr. S. judge whither your Argument be good to prove a true ministerie yea or nay Thirdly I would know whither you thinke that the Ministers of the Romish Church are true Ministers yea or nay but it is manifest Apoc. 18 4. that Gods people are in Rome how came they thyther ther they are converted how was Luther Husse Ierom of Prage the waldenses converted how were they converted in King Henrie the 8. tyme answere this if you can I pray you Fourthly it is not the worke of the Officers of the Church to convert soules but to sede edifie them being convertedia Pastor doth not make shepe but fedeth guideth tendeth his shepe the members of the true Church are al
beast that is are by the Authority of the Romane Empyre established Revel 16.15 out of the mouth of the false Prophet that is are by Authority of the Pope of Rome established out of the mouth of the Dragon that is are by the Authority of Sathan himself established For ther is not a minister in England Elected by that faithful people wher he administreth but is chosen by a profane mixt people if he be chosen law doth not allow such election he is approved ordeyned by Antichrist himself comming but of the mouth of the false Prophets the Prelates of the Land 2. Againe from that ministerie which is not of the Apostolique institution but of mans invention must all the good Christians make Seperation Deut. 13.3 Math. 7.15 â— Timoth. 3.5 Revel 14.9.2 Corinth 11 13-15 Rever 2.2 The Ministerie of England is not of the Apostolique institution but of mans invention Therefore all good Christians must make Seperation from the Ministerie of England The Major is proved thus as in the old Testament Moses commaundeth not to harkeÌ„ to false Prophets Ezechiah endevoreth to draw the people from Ieroboams Preist So in the new Testament Christ willeth to take heed of false Prophets Paull willeth to turne away from such a woe is threatned by Iohn to al that receave the beasts mark from his Ministers Thirdly you worship is not of the Apostolique primitive institution but is invented by man so is Antichristian as may be proved thus Act. 2.4.11.42 10.46 19.6 Rom. 8.26 1. Cor. 12.7 14.15.26 1. The true worship of the Apostolique institution proceeded meerly from the Spirit having no outward help of devised formes of prayers exhortations psalmes Ceremonies The worship of the English assemblies proceedeth out of the Servicebook in devised formes of prayers exhortations psalmes other Ceremonies Therfor the wors his of the English assemblies is not the true worship of the Apostolâ—que institution but is invented by man The major is manifest by the places alledged For vppon the day of Pentecost the Apostles had the holy Ghost given them in the shape of fiery cloven tonges thervppon they spake as the holy Ghost gave them vtterance manifesting the Spirit to the hearets so was it with the Gentils afterward when the holy Ghost came vppon them since that tyme all the churches of the Apostolique institutioÌ„ worshipped afther the same manner for al Churches worshipped after one manner 1. Cor. 16.1 14.36.37 11.2 16. wher note that if devised formes of prayers psalmes exhortations were Gods ordinaÌ„ces the Apostles would have delivered them to the Churches they should have receaved vppon the day of Pentecost fiery bookes as wel as fiery tongs The minor is evident needeth no proof Ergo. 2. Againe From that worship which is invented by man not of the Apostolique institution mustal the good Christians Seperate Col. 2 20-23 Mat. 15.9 Levit. 10.1.2 compared with Act. 2.3 The worship of the English assemblies is invented by man not of the Apostolique institution Therfor from the worship of the English assemblies ought al good Christians to Seperate The major is proved thus For seing the worship of the asseÌ„blies is wil worship vaine-worship devised by man not kindled with the true living fire which came downe from heaven vppon the primitive Church but with such a straunge fire as Nadab and Abihu offered withal therfor it is idolatry so to be Seperated from 4. Fourthly the Government of the assemblies is Antichristian by the confessioÌ„ of theÌ„selves therin can no good Christian joyne except it be lawful for a good Christian which is or ought to be a subject of Christs Kingdom which is visible Church to submit to the vtter enemie of Chr. to his authority which what is it els but to bee a traytor against the L. Iesus yet for further proof I reason thus from these places Act. 14.23 20.28 Phillip 1.1 1. Pet. 5 1.-4 1. The Government of the primitive Apostolique institution was by a Colledge of pastors or presbytery The Government of the English assemblies is by an Antichristian prelate his Officers Therfor the Government of the English assemblies is not the primitive Apostolique Government The major is evident thus For the Apostles instituted Elders by the election of the Saints to oversee the Church feed the Flock of one particular visible Church only as is manifest among the Epheâ—ians Philippians Hebrues al Churches The minor is evident For the Prelates ther officers are not those Christian Bishops of the Apostolique institution elected by placed over one particular Church of the Saynt but are a devised â—yrannical Lordâ—hip â—uling hundreths of parishes by ther owne devised Canons Ergo. 2. Againe From the Government which is devised by man in the Church so is Antichristian which is not of the Apostolique institution must al good Christians Seperate Luk. 19.27 1. Cor. 7.23 Revel 14.9 The Government of the English assemblies is not of the Apostolique institution but is devised by man Antichristian Therfor from the Government of the English assemblies must al good Christians Seperate The major is manifest by the places alledged for seing Christ Iesus only must reigne in the harts of the faythful by his ownâ— officers lawes therfor good Christians must only submit to his officers if they submit to any new officers devised by man Christ saith he wil have theÌ„ slayne they are the Servants of men obeying the Antichristian beast have a woe threatned against them Thus brethren have I written vnto you according to your request Mr. K. his direction proofes of those two points which you expect that in 4. mayne transgressions in the English assemblies viz in the constitution ministerie worship Government of them I pray you brethren keep the copie I send you safe let Mr. K. have a transcript of it if it please him to answer I will be ready to explane matters more fully if ther be any ambiguity to confirme matters doubtful that especialy for your establishment in the truth which now blessed be the Lord is so evident that al the men vppon earth with ther learning can never be able to obscure it Brethren I beseech you grow in grace in the knowledg of our Lord Iesus Christ to whome bee praise in his Church throughout all generations Amen Your Brother in the Fayth Iohn Smyth The Printer to the Reader Though in this treatise ther be divers Lettes either wanting or superfluous or displaced or changed by reason whereof some words are corrupted yet bicause English men can easily help that fault I thought it needlesse to put them in these Errata Only these foure great oversights I desire may be corrected pag. 41. Lin. 1. for Church by the Presbytery read Church to the Presbytery pag 75. Lin. 44. after the last words read So in the New Testament pag. 128. Lin. 32. For Religion is c. read Religion is heresy if this argument be false then is yours false pag. 128. Lin. 34. For is so read become The lesser faults I desire the Reader to pardon