wilful persisting in Schisme joyned with contempt scorne of others I answer doe not you wilfully persist in your Schisme from Rome contemning scorning of them you will say they are in error wee say you are in error that the difference betwixt you vs is more then betwixt you them For your constitution ministery Government is one with theirs but wee are opposite vnto you in all these If it be no finne in you thus to deale with Rome it is no sinne in vs thus to deale with you but I deny vtterly that wee Schisme from you For ther can bee no Schisme from a false Church ministery worship Government except it be Schisme to depart out of Babylon Againe we do neither contemne nor scorne any man only we single the truth leave their corruptions errors refuse to build our Faith vppon men or Churches or false expositions of Scriptures we desire no man to come to vs further then wee have the truth which whither we have or not I referre it must doe to the conscience of every one that loveth the truth who shal live by his owne Fayth and dye for his owne sinnes 5. Synne you cast vppon vs is Rayling Scoffing and blaspheming this you exemplify in two particulars 1. Mr. Barrowes sharp speeches in the discovery 2. our approbation of it in him I answer First that Mr. Barrowes Scripture phrases whatsoever I doe approve justify them fitly to be applyed to your false Church Ministery worship Government til you have forsaken al that falsehood they doe deservedly lye vppon you Secondly The phrases which Mr. Barrow alledgeth borroweth els where I dare not either alow them or reprove them bicause I know not what particular motion of the Spirit guided him so to write but the things signified by those phrases declaring the Idolatry of your Church Ministery VVorship and Government I approve Thirdly that Mr. Barrow eironically vpbraydeth the preaching and VVorship of the assemblies following therein Elias his example I dare not censure that as an vngodly act of his though I doubt not but you doe performeÌ„ these Religious exercises in the honesty of your ignorance as I my self somtyme did Fourthly that he specially inveigheth against the Reformists he doth it not for that they are the worst men but for that by their doings the Lords truth is most hindered they being like the Pharisees aptest to deceave Finally I wil not vndertake the defence of Mr. Barrowes tartnes neither dare I absolutely condemne it seing the Prophet Esay is as sharpe against the true Church as ever was Mr. Barrow against your false Church whereas you alledg my writing vppon the Lords prayer before I saw the Seperation as a confutation or contradiction to Mr. Barrow I say you may aswel alledg against St. Paul his Pharisaical practises persecutions blasphemies befor he came to the truth as evidence to confute Christian Religion which afterward he embraced 6. Synne you lay vppon vs is our opinions the matter of our Schisme Brownisme as you call it which I have already cleered to be the vndoubted truth of God wherto I require youâ— answer or els I affirme before the Lord that you are not able that being convinced your mouth stopped either you must yeeld to the truth or els woe be vnto you from the Lord. And so lend my answer leaving your advertisements counsels of peace vntoucht as matters nothing perteyning to the cause of the Seperation they being like Apollos Oracles apt to bee expounded eyther way or like Delphos sword fit to be vsed for any purpose for they may fit eyther Papist Protestant Reformist or the Seperation An advertisement to the Reader It may happily be thought that this treatise by reason of the tartnes of some speeches phrases censures passed vppon Mr. Be. the ministers Church of England may passe the bounds of Christian wisdom charity especially considering that we of the Seperation cannot be ignorant what great offence ther is taken at Mr. Barrowes bitternes in his discovery that we know how greatly the forward preachers professors of the land desire to be mildly gently handled to have a charitable censure paste of them in respects of their Religious dispositions to the truth wel For Mr. Be. let him know for his part that he is fallen into a deep pit of Apostacy from his formerly seeming sincerity if men may be judged by that which is visible I see no reason why the forward preachers professors of the Lands should not esteem of him as they do of Mr. Merbury sith Mr. Be. is now fallen to his gracious Lords as wel as the other only Mr. Ber. case is somthing better in this respect that he wanteth some of Achitophels pollicy Rabsakeh his rayling of Tertullus Rhetotick to oppose the truth in respect whereof ther is hope that Mr. Be. sinning through infirmity simplicity weaknes of judgment violence of affection may by some sharpe effectual ingredients having vomited vp al his choler purged out al his evil humors be reduced eyther to as good or to a better constitution then wherin he formerly was â—o this purpose is al the sharpe phisick administred vppon him in this prescript so the Author doth intreath Mr. Ber. in his best love to interpret it to remember what Nathan said vnto David thou art that man what David answered Nathan I have sinned what comfort Nathan presently annexed The Lord hath put away thy sinne This condition we vnfeynedly wish to Mr. Be. our old kind frend for the forward preachers professors of the Land they must vnderstand that our censure must be is only according to that which is visible in their communion now in that respect seing the Church Ministery VVorship and Government of the English Ecclesiastical assemblies is judged proved false Antichristian how is it possible that wee should speake otherwise of them as they are ministers and members of that Antichristian body then as of false ministers false Christians what would they have vs speak as the false Prophets did Peace Peace where ther is no peace would they have vs proclayme The Temple of the Lord The Temple of the Lord to the Synagogues of Antichrist this were to deceave them to daube the wal with vntempered mortar but if the forward preachers professors of the Land do imagine that we condemne them as persons voyd of grace as excluded from salvation by Christ or the like censures we give them to vnderstand that the Scripture teacheth vs no such thing but rather forbiddeth such censures for we are not to judg before the tyme therfor concerning this particular we absolutely leave them to the Lord not doubting but he hath his thousands among them desiring them to remember that it is one thing to apply the Scripture to lay the salve to the
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
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
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