Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily but is given to the body of the Church The sixth Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery Then the office of the Deacons widowes are lost sith succession in them is interrupted lost for as in the old testament a Preist came of a Preist a Levite of a Levite so an Elder maketh an Elder a Deacon ordeyneth a Deacon a widow must ordeyne a widow But the office of the Deacon widow is not lost for none of Gods ordinances are perisht but may be had or els Gods truth mercy to his Church fayleth who hath said that he wil be with his Church to the end of the world Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily but is given to the body of the Church The seaventh Argument That doctryne which destroyeth it self is false The doctryne of succession viz that Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. or Presbytery destroyeth it self Therfor the doctryne of succession is a false doctryne The minor I manifest thus If the papists say truly that al ecclesiastical powre floweth from Christ to the Clergie though the pope then why doth the college of Cardinalls make a pope by Election why doth not one pope make another pope before his death Therfor Election overthroweth the succession of the popes office For the pope cannot both give Christs Ministerial powre to the Clergie of Rome take the same ministerial powre from the Cardinals by Election but when the pope is dead then is Christs ministerial powre dead also in the popes person thus doth successioÌ„ overthrow it self in the pope by consequent in the rest For Christs ministerial powre being once interrupted in the pope can never be recovred againe but is vtterly lost so the Church is abolished For if the presbytery be lost the Church is lost if the bbs be lost the presbytery is lost if the pope be lost the bbs be lost if the pope be dead the pope is lost if the pope be lost Christs ministerial powre is lost for if it be said that the pope hath his powre by Election from the Cardinals theÌ„ succession is destroyed so you may see evidently that succession destroyeth it self seing Election must needes be interposed Therfor indeed ther is no true succession but that of the old Testament viz by descent genealogie this succession which is pleaded for by ordination of precedent presbytery bbs pope is mans invention destroyeth it self therfor is a meer Antichristian devise But heer certayne objections must be answered for the further manifestation of the matter of succession for sactisfaction therein The first Objection Alchough the Ministeriall powre of Christ be not given to the pope so perisheth not with him yet it is given to the bbs who are the Successors of the Apostles in that Ministeriall powre and in the dispensation of it to the Ministerie and Church Seing therefore that ther is a certayne and vndoubted Succession of bbs from the Apostles dayes hetherto one ordeyning another successively therefore though succession be interrupted in the Pope whose ministerial heads hip we renounce yet it is continued in the Bbs. who are the Apostles successors in dispensing this ministerial powâ—e to the ministerie Churches Answer to the first Objection This objection dependeth vppon an vncertanity viz That ther hath been a succession of Bbs. one ordeyning another successively froÌ„ Peter Paul Iames through the Church of Rome the Greekes therfor I answer that except they can shew the courte rowles that I may so speak of the vndoubted successive ordination from Peter Paul Iames c. I shal say vnto al the Bbs. of England as Nechemjah said to the Preists that could not shew ther succession from Aaron by Genealogie Nehem. 7 64.65 Bicause their successive ordination is not found they shal be put from their Bishopricks they shal not administer in the Bbs. office til their arise vp one as with Vrim Thummim to divine vnto vs the truth of this matter For we wil not beleeve the records of the Church of Rome who also are defective in this particular for though they have the succession of Popes yet not of other Bbs. Further the vanity of this objection appeareth in this that hereby they are vrged for the justifying of this Antichristian devise of succession by ordination to go to the throne of Antichrist the popedome to fetch their ministerie thence as if the true ministerie off Christ could be in the false Church of Antichrist hereby also they do acknowledg Rome to be the true Church their Sacrificing Preisthood a true Ministerie orders a true Sacrament the Eucharist a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick dead prayers for the dead a thousand such abhominations which are necessary dependances therevppon They must also acknowledg themselves Schismatiques from the Church of Rome are never able to answer the popish bookes the petitions of the Papists to the King who object these and the like things against them The Second Objection Although the pope Bbs have not Christs ministerial powre given to them by succession yet the presbytery may have that powre by delegation from Christ when their shal arise a company of true faithful teachers who standing out against the popedome prelacy al the abhominations therof also renouncing al the corruptions of their ordination refining both the doctryne of faith the true calling of ministers from the drosse of Antichristianisme doe yet notwithstanding retayne the truth which they in the seate of Antichrist had as in the faith so in the ministery For Antichrist had not â—â—â—erly abolished but only corrupted the Lords ordinances Answer to the second Objection This objection dependeth vppon the former grounds namely that the Church of Rome is a true Church though corrupt having a true ministerie though corrupt c. of the rest For otherwise how can they plead ther ministery to be true from the Bbs. except they do acknowledg also the Bbs Ministery to be true receaved froÌ„ the Popedome the popish ministerie to be true for otherwise they must maintaine that a true ministerie commeth from a false ministerie which is as impossible as to bring light out of darknes So that this Objection is also answered in the former already needeth no further answer yet neverthelesse I say vnto the point that al the refining of the world can not bring a true ministery out of a Sacrificing Preisthood Or a true presbytery out of a false Antichristian prelacy For as it was impossible for the preists of the Old Testament to ordeyne true Ministers of the New Testament So much more is it impossible for the false popish Sacrificing preisthood to ordeyne true ministers of Christs true Church For the Sacrificing
the people therfor were necessarily bound over vnto them otherwise they could not find the Lord his truth which was only at Ierusalem in the New Testament the Church Ministery VVorship Government are so constituted by the Lord as that in them ther is no Succession nor alligation of tyme place person c. But when the Church is become false by impenitency the faithful may Seperate cary the truth with them if but two or three Mr. Bern. the L open your eyes the eyes of al his people in England to see this blessed truth of the Lord then the cause of Separation wil be evident vnto your consciences in the meane tyme you cannot but be ignorant A south reason whereby you would prove that to joyne to the Holy things in the communion of obstinate impenitent persons is no sinne is for that the Scripture teacheth the contrary as you say two wayes 1. by acquitying the Godly from the transgression of others 2. by declaring it to be a sinne to leave the Holy things of God for the wickednesse of others this you say cutteth deepely I answer you Mr. Ber. that we do not feele this cut at al for the iron is blunt you had need put to more strength your reason hath in it no cutting quality at all For I doe acknowledg that the Godly if they consent not to nor approve not the sinne of others are by the Lords sentence acquit from the transgression but I would learne of you if the Holy Ghost in the Scripture doth not account the principal the accessary in the lame condition though not in the same degree of sinne what say you to the sinne of Achan the sinne of the men of Gibean concerning the Levites concubine The feare of the Israelites in respect of the Altar built in the border of the Land of Canaan by Iorden These places are evident that consent to sinne polluteth the person consenting the places by you quoted do not prove any thing contrary to this assertion of ours but rather they prove this vndoubted truth of the Lords the place Ezech. 33.9 proveth that as the watchman that dischargeth his duty is acquit so if he discharg not his duty he shal be accessary to the sinne partaker of the punishment as may be seen vs. 6. the place Ezech. 18.14.17.20 doth declare two things that if the child follow not the sinne of the parents he shal be guiltlesse if he partake in ther sinnes he shal be partaker of the. punishment the place Ezech. 14.18.20 sheweth that Noah Daniel Iob shal deliver their owne soules by their righteousnes but al those that are polluted with other mens sinnes shal partake of their plagues Revel 18.4 So that you see these places of the old testament quoted by you do not only not help you but vtterly overthrow your conceipt The places of the new Testament alledged by you also make as litle for you Tit. 1.15 teacheth that al thing are pure to the pure yet the intent of the place is not to shew that sinne is pure to any man although I may lawfully vse the Holy things of God being my self cleane yet being partaker of another mans sinne by consent I polute al the holy things to my self have no title to vse them so the Apostle saith presently to the impure is nothing pure the place Revel 3.4 teacheth that so many of the Church at Sardi as defiled not their garments by consenting to the polution of the rest of that Church but that stood out against their corruptions to the vtmost shal be innocent the other place Revel 2 22-24 sheweth the same thing but for these two places I say you must prove Mr. Ber. that your assemblies are true churches as these were againe you must prove also that these persons neglected their duty of admonishing standing forth against the Church that the church was convinced by them yet did joyne with them in communion of Holy things For otherwise we say we are not to Seperate till wee have done our vtmost endevour neither are we poluted til then your last place is Gal. 5.10 wher the Apostle teacheth that he that troubleth the Galatians shal beare his condemnation whosoever he be yet the Apostle telleth them vs. 9. that a litle leaven leaveneth the whole lump that is to say if you consent to this false doctrine of joyning circumcision to Christ the person that perswadeth you shal beare his burthen whosoever he be yet you also shal be punished receaving the false doctrine but I hope otherwise of you this is the meaning of the Apostle Secondly you say the Scripture teacheth it to be a sinne for to leave the holy things of God for the wickednes of other for this purposes you alledg 1. Sam. 2.24.17 wher you say the wordes are plaine cannot be avoyded by another exposition of the word gnabarwell although the word doth as properly signifie to passe vppon or to passe by as to trespasse that it is so expounded by Pagnin yet I will not plead it at this tyme sith it needeth not Therfor take the place according to your construction that the Sonnes of Ely by their sinnes caused the people to sinne by abhorring the L. offering through occasion of ther wickednes I answer thus in the old Testament no man was to forsake the Sacrifices for other mēs sinnes if they were ceremonialy cleane therfor that the people did abhorre these ordinances of God vppon the wickednes of Elyes Sonnes was ther transgression the L. taught no such thing in the old Testament in the typical communion therof but now in the new Testament we having the truth that was then signified by the old Testament the ordinances therof it followeth necessarily thus that as in the old Testament the communion therof which were typical persons typicaly cleane might not have communion typical with persons typically vncleane without polution ceremonial So in the new Testament the cōmunion therof which is the truth persons moraly cleane may not have Spiritual communiō with persons moraly vncleane without polution moral which is sinne so you are answered according to your exposition of the place yet I deny it to be necessary to expound the place so as you doe Your fifth reason proving it lawful for the Saints to hold communion in the holy things though persons obstinate in sinne be present is For that in the word we have liberty given to come to partake in the holy things if wee look to our selves to reforme our owne wayes mat 5.23.24 1. Cor. 11.28 the Corinths did partake in the holy things with them that were once twise admonished 2. Cor. 12.21 go so may we do I answer The place of Christ Mat. 5.23.24 teacheth that a mā must first reconcile him self to his brother before he offer his gift truth but it must be for al the sinnes he
preisthood of Aarons Family was the Lords ordinance sometyme but the popish Sacrificing preisthood in the mayne substantial parts therof is not only mans device but infinitely impious blasphemously derogating from the honour dignity of Christs Sacrifice preisthood which is aparabatos intransitive Heb. 7.24 according to the order of Melchisedech seing the popish Sacrificing preisthood is in the very essence of it false how can the English prelacy preisthood Deaconry which issued from that Romish preisthood be any other but a sacrificing preisthood although the English prelates have cast away that essential Sacrificing property or forme rather of the Romish preisthood have reduced it to a better temper yet that wil not serve the turne for al that they have in their prelacy preisthood Deaconry they had frō Rome or els where If from Rome then their prelacy preisthood Deaconry is absolutely Romish no other if elswhere then their Succession is gone If both from Rome els where let them declare that Ridle vnto vs. The third Objection The presbyters may have ordination or imposition of hands from the Romish preisthood yet not their office For that may come from heaven or by some extraordinary meanes even as the Lord raised vp some men extraordinarily in these last tymes to restore the truth of doctryne to reduce things to the Apostolique primitive institution as amongst others Hus Luther the rest Answer to the third Objection It is straunge that a man shal have imposition of hands from one his office from another Besides it is contrary to the nature of Succession wherein the partie that ordeyneth giveth the office ministeriall powre to him that is ordeyned for that it the thing that is pleaded that Christs ministeriall powre commeth by Succession through ordination of precedent presbyters It contradicteth their owne ground therefore to say that imposition of hands is from a popish preist and the true office from some other meanes But let vs inquire what that other meanes may be To say that Christs Ministeriall powre is from heaven is not denyed but the question is What is the instrument or meanes which Christ hath appointed to conveigh that Ministeriall powre vnto man kind And who are they that first receave it from Christs hand out of heaven Or what is proton dektikon the first subject of this ministerial powre We say the Church or two or three faithful people Seperated frō the world joyned together in a true covenant have both Christ the covenant promises the ministerial powre of Christ given to them that they are the body that receave from Christs hand out of heaven or rather from Christ their head this ministerial powre you say not so but this ministerial powre commeth by succession from the ministery which is the first subject of this powre that al this powre is derived from man to man from the Apostles hands through al the Preists hands of Rome the Prelates hands of England to you Mr. Bern. your line pedigree of Preisthood is lineally descended from Peter or Paul c. to you through so many generations of popish preists as have succeded from Peters person to your person Even as Annas Cayaphas descended lineally from Aaron only this is the difference that the succession of Annas Cayaphas was by genealogie or generation yours is by succession of ordination or imposition of hands therfor bicause you see that you fal vnder this foule absurdity that your Preisthood must be of necessity of the same kind that the popish preisthood is you have invented a new trick to say that it commeth from heaven extraordinarily with Hus Luther and the rest of those glorious witnesses which the Lord in these last tymes raised vp to the destruction of the man of sinne VVhich if it be so Then say I shew your succession from Luther Hus Prage c. Or els Nechemiah will putt you from your preisthood The fourth Objection But every King in his dominions is appointed by Christ to be a head ministerial to the Church al the Preists of that country do receave their ministerial powre from the King by the ordination of the Bbs. vnto whome the King hath committed the dispensation of that powre so that the King being the Lords Lieftenant in his owne dominions hath this ministerial powre from Christ the Bbs. from the King the Preists from the Bbs. the Church from the Preists Answer to the fourth Objection If the King of every country hath Christs ministerial powre given to him immediately from heaven that the Clergie of that nation have Christs ministerial powre from the King then these consequents folow which are intolerable absurdities 1. The King of every country is a person civil Ecclesiastical having al civil ecclesiastical powre that immediately from Christ 2. The King of every country can preach administer the Sacraments exercise Spirituall jurisdiction excommunicate c. 3. The King of every country can make ordeyne Ministers 4. The King of every country is a Pope or Patriarch in his owne territories and Dominions How these points wil agree with the Analogie of faith let every man judg so give sentence whither this objection conteyne any the least shew of truth in it yea or nay Now what authority the Lord hath given every King in his owne dominions I leave to be descussed in his proper place viz in the 15. Section of this lettre to Mr. Bern. The fifth Objection But the ministery is now extraordinarily raised vp For as in the first planting of the Churches the Lord Iesus vsed the extraordinary ministery of Apostles Prophets Evangelists to publish the Gospel to the world to plant Churches so after the Apostacy of Antichrist in the restoring of the truth the Lord vseth the same extraordinary ministerie not indued with those extraordinary gifts which they had but apointed by the L. for the same purposes viz the planting of true Churches the revealing of his truth Answer to the fifth Objection First the Ministers of England namely you Mr. Ber. among the rest do not chalendg to be Apostles Prophets Evangelists but you say you are true presbyters or Pastors of particular true visible Churches therfor this objection helpeth you nothing if it were yeelded you Secondly you cannot maintayne your ordinary ministerie as succeding by ordination from these supposed Apostles Evangelists Prophets for then you must acknowledg the prelates of England to be Apostles Prophets Evangelists whereas they doe challendg no such thing But only maintayne themselves to be ordinary Bbs. the ordinary Successors of the Apostles neither do they intend to make you ministers as Apostles but as Bbs. Thirdly ther is none of the Reformists that ever I heard of that vndertake as Apostles Prophets Evangelists to ordeyne Elders Finaly how can any of you be Apostles Prophets or Evangelists who stand members of
the assemblies in subjection to the prelates whose Lords you are if you be either Apostles Prophets or Evangelists but you see they are your Lords For either you are false Apostles false Prophets or els by the evidence of the word Spirit you must rise vp stand out against depose the prelates whose authority you say is Antichristian besides that you must prove vnto vs by good sufficient warrant that the Lord raiseth vp Apostles prophets Evangelists to overthrow Antichrist to restore the true ministerie that you who with al your might support the Throne of the beast are those Apostles prophets Evangelists whome the L. raiseth vp for that purpose which yet you never have done or attempted to do whither you can do or not I leave to the consideration of al those that search after the truth Hetherto I have proved by sufficient arguments negatively that Christs Ministeriall powre is not given by Christ primarily by succession either to the pope Bbs. or presbytery whose claime dependeth vppon one the same title viz Successive ordination from the Apostles through the Church of Rome to the hands of every preist or presbyter in England therfor the Ministerial powre of Christ must needes be given primarily to the bodx of every visible Church though they be but two or three in nomber For this is a sufficient Enumeration of parts that Christs ministerial powre is given primarily either to the Pope Bbs. Presbytery or body of the Church except that men wil say it is given to the King of every Kingdom which is an absurdity intollerable as is already declared which I never heard pleaded for which the Kings of England doe renounce But Christs ministerial powre is not giuen by successive ordination either to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily or originally therfor Christs ministerial powre is givē to the body of the Church viz to two or thre faithful people joyned together into an Ecclesiastical politique body by the true covenant or new testament of Christ Iesus But bicause happily some persons may be vnsatisfied seing the former arguments are only grownded vppon reason not frō particular evidence of Scripture Therfor I hold it necessary furthermore to confirme this truth of the L. by vndeniable growndes of Scripture that affirmatively as followeth The first Argument from Mat. 16 13-20 From this place of Scripture I frame an argument after this manner Christs Disciples are Christs Church Mat. 16.13.18 Christs ministerial powre is given to Christs Disciples Ergo Christs ministerial powre is given to Christs Church The Minor of this argument which only is doubtful I confirme thus That which was spoken given to Peter that was spoken given to al the Disciples of Christ Mat. 16.13.14.19 Christs ministerial powre was vttered delivered to Peter who spake for in the name of the rest Mat. 16.13.15.16.18.19 Ergo Christs ministerial powre was by speech indeed committed to all Christs Disciples The Major of this argument only is controversal which I manifest thus Vnto them did Christ speake commit his ministerial powre that made the confession viz that Christ was that Christ the Sonne of the living God But Peter al the Disciples by Peters mouth made that confession viz that Christ was that Christ the Sonne of the living God Ergo Vnto all the Disciples did Christ speake give that his Ministeriall powre The Minor being cleered the whole Argumēnt is evident VVherfor consider 1. That Christ in the vs. 13. asketh his Disciples a question 2. In the vs 15. he saith whome do ye say that I am by which it appeareth that Christ asketh this question of all his Disciples generally and so it followeth by proportion necessarily that seing all were demaunded that question therfor all made that answer confession the argument is framed after this manner They answered made the confession vnto whome Christ propounded the question or made the demaund But Christ propounded the question or demaund to all his Disciples and not only to peter or only to the twelve Apostles as may be proved in the course of the text vs. 13-24 Ergo All the Disciples answered made the confession ther mentioned by the Evangelist The Second Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 16.19 From these places I reason after this manner That which is given to two or thre of Christs Disciples is given to the body of the Church if they be many in nomber Christs Ministeriall powre is given to two or three Disciples of Christ Ergo Christs ministerial powre much more is givē to the body of the church being many in nomber The Major is without controversie for iff Christs powre be given to two or three then much more to twenty thirtie an hundreth they being al of them Christs Disciples The minor is proved after this manner The keies of the Kingdom of heaven or the powre of binding losing is given to two or three Disciples of Christ Christs ministerial powre is the keies of the Kingdom of heaven or the powre of binding losing Ergo Christs ministeriall powre is given to two or three Disciples off Christ The minor being evident the major may thus be confirmed Vnto them doth Christ give the keies of the kingdom of heaven or powre of binding losing to whome of whome he speaketh But Christ speaketh to Diseiples of brethren Ergo the keies of the Kingdom of heaven or powre of binding losing is givē by Christ to the Disciples or brethren The minor viz that Christ speaketh to Disciples of brethren is manifest by divers particular vs. 1.15.21 The Disciples move a question vnto Christ concerning the Kingdom of heaven Christ teacheth vnto them vs. 15. that the litle ones that is the brethrē the Disciples must not be offēded or if they go astray be lost they should be sought againe vs. 15-17 teacheth the dutyes of admonition in the degrees therof for the winning of our brethren perserving of them from going astray therfor vs. 18. he speaketh of brethren Disciples attributing to them the powre of binding losing vs. 19. promising the hearing of their prayers vs. 20. promising to them his presence if they be but three or two vs. 21.22 teaching them remission of offences private vnto seaventy tyme seaven tymes VVherevppon I ground this infallible argument Iff the whole scope intent of this place Mat. 18 15-20 compared with Mat. 16 13-20 doth ayme at the Disciples of Christ or the brethren Mat. 23.8 teaching that binding and losing the keies of the Kingdom of heaven Christs presence acceptance of their prayers c. aperteyneth to them then Christs ministerial powre is given to the Disciples or brethren if but three or two so much more if they be a multitude But the whole scope of these places is directed to the Disciples or brethren Teaching that offences must be
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
Kingdome of Antichrist by your writings against the truth by your vntruth vttered of mee others You have now two writings of myne in your hands this theother you know of wherein our cause is discovered which I have especially directed to you for your good I beeseech yoâ— in the name of the L. look to your self search into this truth I wonder you should not see it it is clearer to mee then noone day or if you see it as it seemeth you once did by your confession then I wonder much more that you who seem so holye as you doe should dare to continue in your evil way if you have any thing to say in answer to this theother writing let vs heer from you take heed of wresting misconstruing my writings you shal gaine nothing by it I assure you at my handes set your conscience vppon the wrack before the Lord examine your hart what hindereth you from the truth know this that if any sinister respect hinder you you therein shal find litle peace to your conscience declare lesse thankfulnes to God know it would bee the greatest honour ever befel you to be one of the Lords witnesses it wil be the greatest disgrace that can possible light vpp on you to be found one of those that fight against the lamb Iesus Christ in resisting his truth the witnesses thereof assure your self Gods truth wil prevaile in despight of al the gainsayers remember that our cause is the same in a manner with the Puritane cause onely they dare not practise as wee doe remember that the Lord hath had those that have spilt ther blood in this testimonie ther blood testimony hath stirred vs vp to this our witnesse consider that this truth prevayleth daily shal prevayle it was opposed in the Queenes dayes it hath prevayled standeth in despight of al the gainsayers consider that though the Prelates you with your fellow Preists oppose against it yet it hath growne to this head as you see what are you Mr. Bern. to oppose against it you are a simple man in comparison of them that have delt against it have taken the foyle All the Oxford Doctors Mr. HildershaÌ„ Mr. Iacob Mr. Bredwel Mr. Giffard could not with ther writings overthrow this truth doe you think that you can batter it with your mediocrity nay you are to yong to deale against this cause al your rage wrath choller revendge shal never bee able to daunt vs or to diminish the credit of Gods truth you had need more then any maÌ„ I know in your way to walk in this way with vs For you have so many vagaries to froe so many rebellious courses so many distempered affections speeches that so long as you are not vnder the L. yoke vnhampered by the L. ordinances the censures of the Church you shall find litle rest to your Soule wee for our part care not for your help for our gaine wil be litle by you if any thing at all but wee respect your own good God hath no need of you you see he can work his work without you Let these things work vppon you take heed you bee not deceaved by the applause of the multitude nor by the Prelates fayre wordes nor by his angels Remember that if you receave not the love of the truth God may deliver you over justly to beleeve lies to your owne overthrow think not much that I write thus vnto you I doe it out of compassion and love to you vnto whome I wish so well David was content to bee smitten by the righteous and flatterie I think overthroweth you your Parasites have robbed you of your wisdome beleeve mee I speak the truth So requiring your answer to both my writings I bid you farewell Heer endeth the letter which was written to Mr. B. divided into 19. Sections with the Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to every particular Section therof Thus have I Mr. Bern. passed through the substantial part of your book which conâ—erneth the cause it self which although you have placed in the last place namely from gag 78. forward yet I thought meet to make answer to it in the first place bicause it is the most material part of your book and heerin you have vsed a notable peece of Sophistical Rhetorick first to draw our persons into dislike with your readers and so to prejudicate forstal ther myndes against our cause For so it falleth out customably that the person being dislliked the cause cannot bee entertayned wherfor after you had collected al your superficial stuffe al the accidental conjectures which you heape vp in your book from pag. 21. to 78. and had cast them in the Readers way whereat he might stumble theÌ„ you come from pag. 78. to the end to the matter varnish that also as wel as you can therby thinking vtterly to pervert your Reader from the truth well Mr. Bern. I have through the mercy of God answered al the substantial points of your book not omitting one to my knowledg that is worth answer but especially I have labored to manifest the mayne cause of our Seperation the first fondacion rock of truth which is that Christs ministerial powre is given to two or thre Faithful ones who are the true seed of Abraham to whome the promises the covenant of the New Testament Christ al the holy things are given For this is the groundwork Foundacion of the L. truth this I beseech al the land al the faithful of the land especialy to look vnto if they yeeld this ground they must needes Seperate if they deny this ground then ther is no footing for them but in Succession the Popes chayre So that heer is the controversy heer is the state of the Question whither the holy things with Christ be given originally to the body of the Church to the Faithful or whither the holy things with Christ bee given to the Ministery originally that the Church hath al from the ministery that is the point of succession I beseech you Mr. Bern. all the honest harted people of the Land to waygh determine this point in their owne harts then your book wil be found to be but froth now having answered your mayne matter I come to answer your probabilities against the Sep. schisme From the pag. 21-44 you propound 7. Likelihoods that the way of the Seperation is not the truth which probabilities may be framed into these formes of reasoning The first Likelyhood against the Sep. is thus framed Novelty is not the truth The Seperation is Novelty go not the truth For answer to this argument I ask whither Luthers Calvins opinions were false bicause they were new For popery had the prescription of a thousand yeers against Calvin but Calvin hath not had the prescription of an hundreth yeeres against the Seperation nay I suppose not above fifty yeeres