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
nothing for your purpose For you speak not of perfect knowledg but of sound knowledg that Epithete doth not argue the quantity or perfect measure but the quality or true condition of knowledg which I do avouch by the former groundes to be a true convertible signe of sanctification so of a Saynt Pure affection also is another true token of Sanctification Matt. 5.8 1. Tim. 1.5 Tit. 1.15 which pure hart or affection is not a hart voyde of sinn but of hipocrisy for that you object of Paul Rom. 7.18.21 it is nothing to overthrow his pure affection For though he had sinne yet he know nothing by himself whereof he had not repented Continuall practise of Holy dutyes also is a true signe of a Saynt or a Sanctified person Psal 119.101.102.106.112 And although Ecclesiastes saith that ther is no man without sinne vet that hindreth not but that some may continualy practise their dutyes sith this is the summe of al that by repentaÌ„ce faith which are the continual practise of the Saynts a man doth alwayes performe his duty the speech of Eclestastes is the sentence of the law not of the gospel But heerin is your monstrous fraud and abhominable dissembling manifested that vnder these doubtful termes of sound knowledg pure affection practise of duty allwayes you would bleare mens eyes that they should not see the truth VVhat doe you think that any of vs would be so absurd as to say that perfect knowledg love obedience without any imperfection or fault are the signes of Sanctification And yet wee say that sound knowledg a pure hart and continual practise of Holy dutyes are the most infallible tokens of true Saynts and men truly Sanctified But you are wholly transformed as I perceave into vayne jangling In the next place I doe acknowledg that your fix affirmatives are somthing to the purpose But neverthelesse you have mingled much chaffe with the wheate wherfore breefly in all that which you write page 85. 86. 87. 88 Concerning this matter I doe observe these particulars Namely 1. That although an outward calling profession and baptisme to the faith be part of the signes of Saynts Namely visible markes outwardly yet they must be thus qualified els they are nothing but pictures or images resembling shadowing Sanctification superficialy For they must be true inward also True calling profession baptisme inward calling profession baptisme are the infallible tokens of Sanctification and Saynts The inward must be discerned by the outward the truth must be judged by the word He that is so called so professeth is so baptised as the word teacheth that is to say He that is called and Seperated from the VVorld Antichristianisme all false wayes knowne vnto him he that professeth that true faith taught in the New Testament of Christ which is but one he that is baptised into that true faith after that true manner Christ hath prescribed I must needs say that he is truly called truly professeth is truly baptized and so he by reason of his outward true calling true profession of the true faith and true baptisme is discerned judged to be inwardly called inwardly to have faith to be inwardly baptized that truly A company of men thus called professing baptized are Saynts But if half ot but some of them only be thus the rest impenitent obstinate in sinne it cannot possibly be that they should joyntly together be a true Church being light darkenes righteousnes impenitency Christ and Belial or being joyned together those former called professing baptized doe forsake their righteousnes partake with the wicked in their sinnes and so shal receave of their plagues How then can that mixt company be called Saynts yea they are as accessary to fearful sinne before the Lord before men judging according to the rules of Gods word which is the touchstone of al truth according wherevnto all our judgments must be squared as by a canon rule of direction 2. The better part visible signes of Gods favour and presence Gods good pleasure acceptation are excellent respects in the Church But they are not demonstrative proper adjuncts of saynts sufficieÌ„t to cause a mixt company to be al saynts in definition But you speak of a mixt company one way wee vnderstand a mixt company another way You define a mixt company to be of men that are truly Sanctified and men openly wicked profane I for my part doe abhorre to call such a Company Saynts Nay I should rather and that truly call such a mixt Company a false Church and all of them visiblie Antichristians Neyther doe I any whitt quayle that you say all divines say-so I know ther is oâ—â— namely Iohn the divine the rest of the Apostles that teach the contrary if the divinity of your divines be contrary to the divinity of the Apostles Iohn that worthy divine I reject it I abhorre it I wish it cast to the bottomlesse pit from whence it came For know you Mr. Bern. that the worser part somtyme giveth denomination to the thing If a peck of wheate be intermingled with an hundreth quartar of chaffe it is not a heape of wheate but of chaffe if a pint of wine be mingled with a gallon of lees it is the lees of wine not wine you know in Logick conclusio sequitur deteriorem partem Now a company of wicked men having some few Saynts known only to the Lord among theÌ„ for being mingled with the wicked in Spiritual communion they cannot be judged Saynts by the rule of Gods word to man particularly certaynly as your assemblies of England are cannot be al caled Saynts in any colour of truth For then al the men of England are Saynts seing they al are joyned together into one Ecclesiastical body which I suppose you cannot nor dare not say the Scripture ever intended so to give them denomination but you must vnderstand that we acknowledg the visible Church a mixt company in the Lords account estimation in our general comprehension For so wee learne that the visible Church consisteth of wheate tares Mat. 13. The Lord he knoweth that the Church hath Hypocrites in it we are informed so by the scriptures ther were but twelve Apostles one of them was a Devil but eight persons in the Arck cursed Cham was one but foure persons in the beginning Runagate Kain was one but stil we deny that open wicked impenitent persons can be called Saynts bicause of the communion presence of some elect ones who are only known vnto the Lord being of one ecclesiastical body with the wicked Neither can a wicked company be called Holy or Saints truly in respect of the visible signes of Gods favour or presence For then the Papists Anabaptists Familists Arrians among them Exod. 3.5 the ground was caled Holy Mat. 4.5 Ierusalem is caled the Holy cittie typicaly
faith are the members of the Church of England baptized which the Law establisheth which the Prelates Ministers teach which the Church of England professeth which the minister baptising intendeth wherto the parents witnesses or Susceptors consent which the Service-book expresly mentioneth But the law doth not establish the Prelates ministers do not teach the Church of England doth not professe the baptizer doth not intend the parents Susceptors doe not consent to the Servicebook doth not mention the Faith of Christ simply but the Faith of Bbs. or Church of England Ergo The members of the Church of England are not baptized into the Faith of Christ simply but into the Fayth of the Bbs. or Church of England which is the false Fayth of the baptizer of the Suertyes or parents and so the Faith of the baptisme For the second point let vs consider the faith repentance of the Church of Englād I meane of the faith that is visibly professed expressed in the fruites of repētance amōg them therby we shal know the tree The faith of that Church is not a true faith which teach professe a false mediator the repentance of that Church is not a true repentance which practise according to that false doctryne But the assemblies Ecclesiastical of England with the teachers professors of them teach and professe a false Mediator For they teach that Christ is a Mediator of all that false Church Ministery VVorship and Government established in the Land Sacrificing and making intercession for them in the dayly practise al those abhominations Ruling and Governing them by all the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and by the courts canons Ecclesiastical which are the inventions of the man of sinne Teaching Prophesying vnto them by those Antichristian Prelates Preists Deacons which raigne in the Land so practising according to this false Faith practise a false repentance Ergo the Faith of the Church of England of the teachers professors therof the repentance of them is not true but false But it wil be objected against both these assertions that although one thing be intended in baptisme yet the Lord may admit of accept another though they professe preach falsely yet the Lord he can doth no doubt work mervaylously besides al that we can think or speak Truth I yeeld it most willingly blessed be the Lord for his infinite vnspeakeable mercy therein but we dispute not what God can do of his powre or wil do of his mercy things vnknowne vnto vs but we speake of things revealed and manifested vnto vs according whervnto we must walk judg of matters according to that which we see according as the word judgeth according as the Church members of the Church of England teach professe practise visibly which is seen discerned of vs we are to passe our censure but we judg no man before the tyme we doe not clyme vp into Gods judgment seate our Faith is visible our repentance is visible our charity visible our Spirit visible our baptisme visible our preaching visible our covenant visible our Church visible our judgment visible things that are revealed aperteyne to vs our Children that say we is false in the assemblies Ecclesiastical Secreat things aperteyne to the Lord these we leave to the Lord we medle not with them this I desire may once for al be remembred pondered so I end this matter The Fiftenth Section The next point is your Fourth wherin you do vs open injury viz. 4. In holding that Princes have no more to do in ecclesiastical causes then one of you in a particular congregation these are your wordes Mr. Ber. I challeng you in this particular imputation to be either a malicious or an ignorant slaunderer For eyther you know not what we teach concerning Princes Authorityes so slaunder vs ignorantly or if you know our judgmēt in that matter you slaunder vs malitiously Remember that the Prophet in the Psalmes complayneth that his enemyes digd pits for him laid snares grinnes nets in his way to catch him ynawares to bring evil vppon him are you now become such an enemy vnto vs doe you think by calling into question the Supremacy of Princes imputing therin treason to vs to catch vs in a snare cause vs to fal into the pit if this be your course thus to hunt the Soules of men look vnto your self therin you manifest litle grace to me but let vs heer the cause you impute to vs. you say we hold that princes have no more to do in ecclesiastical causes then one of vs in a particular congregaciō I say for myne owne part I think I may say it for al the brethren of our Church that herin you do shamefully belie vs I wil therfor manifest what we hold teach concerning Princes Supremacy 1. First wee teach hold according to the Scriptures that Princes civil Estates are the Lords blessed ordinance Rom. 13.2 2. Secondly that every Soule ought to be subject vnto the civil Magistrates of what estate condition soever they be Rom. 13.1 Tit. 3.1 1. Pet. 2.13 3. Thirdly that we must absolutely submit vnto the civil Magistrate eyther to do his lawful commaundements or to suffer his vnlawful punishments by consequence from the former places 4. Fourthly that it is vnlawful for any subject to make insurrection or rebellion against the civil Magistrates by consequence from the former places 5. Fifthly that it is the Magistrates office to be the keeper of both the tables of the cōmaundemēts both to abolish Idolatry al false wayes also to forbid punish al vnrighteousnes as also to commaund cause al men within there Dominions to walk in the wayes of God being fitted prepared therevnto and that by the examples of David Iosaphat Hezechiah Iosiah Nehemiah Roman 13.4.5 Psalm 101. toto and 132. 2-5 6. That a Prince hath powre in a particular visible Church to punish any wickednes any one committeth and to cause that visible Church to assume practise any truth Gods word teacheth ex praecedentibus now this is more authority then any one particular member hath 7. VVee teach notwithstanding that Princes if they wil be saved must bee members of a true visible Church must walk ther in the obedience of Gods Commaundements ordinances submitting to the censures for the reformation salvation of his soule as well as to the preaching to the VVord administration of the Seales of the covenant prayers c. bicause God hath appointed but one way to save the Soules of Princes and Subjects 8. If civil Magistrates be by censures cast out of the true visible Church yet they are stil to be accounted Gods ordinance stil to bee obeyed in the L. stil to be submitted to in regard of their punishment no rebellion or insurrection to be made against them by any of the Church whatsoever but prayer
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
152. 6. That our Church standoth in an adulterous estate pag. 152. 7. That they cannot say certaynly by any warrāt off Gods worde that any of vs hath eyther fayth or seare god pag. 152. 8. That none off our Ministers may be heard pag. 152. 9. That it is not lawful to joyne in prayer with any off vs pag. 155. 10. That Ministers may not celebrate marriage nor bury the dead pag. 156. 11. That Ministers should only live off voluntary contribution not eyther off sett stipends or tithes pag. 156. 12. That our Churches ought to be raced downe not to be imployed to the true worship of God pag. 156. And thus much off this al other their Brownistical opinions pag. 157. This is the Recapitulation of our Brownisticall opiniōs as Mr. Bern. of his blasphemous vncharitablenes giveth them their denomination Remember herein that every cōpany of men whome god raised vp in this latter age to testifie for the truth against the man of sinne hath been intitled with like names as Lutherans Calvinists Zwinglians c. As in the act Christiās are caled the Sect of the Nazarits whēce I for my part should rather gather encouragemeht in the truth we hold then any discouragemēt seing no other thing befalleth vs herein then befell al the witnesses of the L. truth in al ages but let Mr. Bern his conforts vnderstand that we chardg them with Antichristianis me which they can not deny but which the best most sincere professors of the truths which he calleth Brownistical we justifie frō the holy Scriptures wherein let Mr. Bern. consider whither he doe not wound the Holy Scriptures the Holy Apostles Christ Iesus himself the Holy Spirit the author off the Holy Scriptures that through our sides For if these opinious as wee hold them be the truth of God then is he a blasphemer in a very high degree I would know whither he that heretofore oft tymes confessed them for truths can nowwithout horrible impiety apostacy blasphemy proclayme them Brownistical opinions see also whither his conscience can be cleer in this Now Further I desire the reader to compare these 22. particulars with the 16. points which I in this lettre have answered therby he shal observe two things First that Mr. Bern her in chardgeth vs with no thing truly which is not already answered in this lettre therfor he needed not againe to have objected these things publiquely except he had first published the lettre answered the particulars therof but herin it seemeth he thought to bleare the eyes of the world to beare mē in hand that he had somthing to say which was vnanswerable which notwithstanding was already answered as may be perceaved Secondly that this book of Mr. Ber. is most properly directly aymed at my lettre wherin I am most especialy interessed to yeeld answer though it be once answered by another happily may receave a third answer yet I cannot overpasse it least I seme to betray the truth who am by name singled out to the cōbat finaly seing Mr. Bern. hath published against vs without answer to this lettre let vs also herin cōsider his fraud decept in perverting misconstruing adding detracting falsely chardging vs following therein the dealing off his Father the Devill with Christ our first parents For all these evil courses I wil discover evidently to the reader that Mr Bern. in the particular Sections of this lettre hath vsed with mee so let these be added to his former sinnes mentioned in the First Section it wil appeare that he is now manifested by the L. to be one that hath fulfilled the measure of his iniquity The third Section The first point therfor that I wil speak to is vour tenth viz 10. That an erroneous constitution of a Church is a real Idol Heer I would fayne knowe whence you had this position I confesse I have written some such thing but neither have I written neyther doe I hold it as you propound I say that a Religions society framed after the invention of a mā without the warrant of the word is a real Idol but I do not say that some errors in the cōstitution of a Church maketh that Church a reall Idol For as in generation every fault in the seed which is the matter as for example a seed inclined to the gont or consumption or stone doth not make a false man but the partie begotten may be a true man not withstanding the infirmity of the seed So in the constitution of a Church not every error as if the members wherof the Church is framed have ignorances errors or infirmities in them maketh the Church a real idol For so ther should never possibly be a true Church in the world seing it is impossible to find men free from error Therfor this is the ground that I hold that if either the matter of the Church be not such as the word teacheth but a devised matter or of the forme be not that which the word teacheth but a devised forme or if the Church have not the properties which Gods word teacheth which doe necessaryly proceed frō the forme induced vppon the matter then such a Church I avouch to be a real idol take a fimilitude to illustrate it The seed of an asse a horse mingled together in generation doe not produce eyther a true horse or a true asse but a third thing formally differing from both viz a mule even so wicked men joyned with Godly men in a Church doe not produce a true Church but a false Church viz a reall Idol the church of Antichrist For this point consider what the holy Ghost writeth Apoe 18.2 That Antichrists Church is ther Prophesyed to be a cage of every vncleane hateful byrd which might not be eaten or offered in Sacrifice by the Holy people Deut. 14 3.11 againe 2. Cor. 6.14 The Apostle willeth the Corinths not to yoke with vnbeleevers bicause as in the old Testament the Holy people were forbidden to yoke an oxe which was a cleane creature an affe which was vncleane to draw the plough together Deut 22.10 Even so the faithful may not now yoke themselves to draw the L. plough with vn belevers bicause they may have no communion concord agreement followiship or part the one with theother but the faithful who are righteousnes light of the body of Christ the Temple of God the Children of God must come out from the vnbeleevers who are vnrighteousnes darknes of Belial the habitation of Devils Apoc 18.2 yea must be seperated from them must touch none of there vncleannes For if they stil stand in confusion with the vnbeleevers consenting to al ther sines they in that constitution are not a true Church but the prayers they offer vp with the prayers of the wicked comming from that false constitution are taynted with the idolatry of that constitution but perhaps you wil say that
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
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
you see they vanish away as chaffe before the wind your matter is false not bad as appeareth evidently if you wil not be blind To proceed pag. 116-122 of your book you describe vnto vs the true forme of the Church inwardly to be the Spirit Faith Love outwardly the word profession the Sacramēt of the L. Supper these things say you are in your assemblies Ergo you conclude your Church hath a true forme I answer have not the Papists the word preached do not they make profession live as strictly as you do not they communicate in the L. Supper so by consequent have Love Faith the Spirit yet you say they are false Churches wanting the true forme even so are you although you do al that they doe much more for so you are much bettered in doctrine vse of the Sacrament but in profession practise I suppose you are inferior to many of them bicause rejecting Christ in his offices as hath been said especialy in his Kingdom it is impossible in that constitution communion you should aright vse the word make profession partake in the Sacrament or have the true visible Love Faith Spirit of Christ For a false matters vncapable of a true forme it is impossible that the body of Antichrist should have the true Spirit of Christ or the true covenant new Testament of Christ invested vppon them invisibly I hope wel am perswaded of millions among you but I speake of your visible politique body Ecclesiastical in that mixture of persons subordination of Ecclesiastical officers communiō Spiritual in the Holy things which by Law is established supported in your Ecclesiastical assemblies But pag. 121. you bid vs note this what viz that corruptions doe not hinder men from being a true Church before men no more then the corruptions of the hart do hinder a man from being an elect one invisiblie to the Lord I suppose bicause you bid vs in the margent of your book note this that you account it a matter worth noting and I surely think it a note worth nothing For although corruptions of matters accidentall make not a false Church yet corruptions essential of matters essential make a false church namely if the matter be false or the forme false yea I avouch that if a truly constituted Church detected of corruptions accidental convinced impenitent therin do so continue they become a false Church as hath been proved already before in the 8. Section for impenitency inward or outward maketh a false Christian Church inwardly or outwardly according to due proportion Furthermore pag. 122-128 you bring vs three true visible properties of your true Church as you say 1. continuance in the vse of the word Sacraments prayer 2. the holding forth of the truth against the enemyes thereof 3. mutual care for the welfare each of other al these you say you have among you so you say you must needes be a true Church I answer Seing your matter and forme is false your propertyes cannot be true For they arise necessarily from the vnion of the matter and forme or from the forme induced vppon the matter seing therefore the first is already proved the latter also must needs follow but let vs examine these things particularly I denie therfor in the first place that you have wel propounded the propertyes of the true Church For the first and principal essential property of a true Church is interest and title to al the Holy things which is extant in divers particulars as parcels of that general and whole property therfore a people declaring their faith and repentance by Seperating themselves from all vncleanenes by resigning themselves wholy to the Lord to become his people have God for their Father Christ for their King Preist and Prophett and so with Christ have title to all the meanes of Salvation and this title consisteth in the VVord Sacraments Censures Prayers Almes and al other parts of Spirituall visible communion whatsoever even as when the soule is induced vppon the matter viz when the breath of life is breathed into the nosthrils of dust of the Earth Genes 2. then ther is a man with a reasonable and Religions Soule So when a company of faithful people are invested with the New Testament of Christ then ther is in them title to al the holy things of God whatsoever This is evident by that which I have before manifested in the seaventh Section whither the Reader is to be referred wherfore Mr. Bern. to apply this vnto your Church I avouch that seing you are a false matter of a Church and have a false forme or covenāt induced vppon you as hath been shewed before therefore you have no true title to the meanes of Salvation but in vsurping the VVord Sacraments Censures Prayers Almes c. you therein incurre the reproof of the Prophet saying Psalm 50.16 what hast thou to doe to declare myne ordinances that thou shouldest make my covenant into thy mouth seing thou hatest to be reformed and hast cast my wordes behind thee And as the Prophet speaketh Esay 1. 11-18 your worship is iniquity I cannot beare it I am weary of it I hate it Therefore you may plead as long as you will the Temple of the Lord the Temple of the Lord yet I say vntill you intertayne Christs true Kingdome Preisthood Prophecy you are but vsurpers of all that visible communion in the Word Sacraments Prayers c. which is among you For it doth not follow that bicause you have the Word Sacraments Censures prayers c. therefore you are a true Church neither are the vsing of these true propertyes of a true Church But the title to them is the true propertie of a true Church For the Papists and all Antichristians and Heretiques vse the Word Sacraments Censures prayers but they are not therfor a true Church as I know you will confesse But heer you wish vs againe pag. 122. to observe well Lett vs heer what it is that you wish vs to observe well Namely the true VVord preached and the true Sacraments administred are the true propertyes to a true Church And that you have those things as you say well VVhat is the true word and what are the true Sacraments is not the true word the true doctryne of the word the true doctryne of the New Testament but you have rejected the whole doctryne of Christs Kingdome in a manner and have advanced all that false doctryne of the Antichristian hierarchy which is taught and commaunded by Law to be taught in your Church And you in your pulpits proclayme all them Heretiques or Schismatiques that teach and erect the Church Ministerie VVorship and Government according to the paterne of Christ his New Testament And so you have abrogated and disanulled the VVord of God by your traditions and Antichristian devises Againe VVhat are true Sacraments is the breaking of bread and
false Churches Ergo. The worship offered vnto the L. in those Ecclesiasticall assemblies is a false worship The ground of this argument is this that al the Ecclesiastical actions performed by a false Church are stayned with the false constitution of the church For God wil not have every communion of men worship him but he wil be worshipped by such a company of people as he hath described in his new Testament as in the old Testament no man or company of men might worship or be accepted visibly but such as were circumcized Gen. 17.14 Exod. 12.48 Deut. 23 1-4 Act. 21.28 2. King 17 25-28 Ioh. 4.22 So in the new Testament no man or communion of men visiblie can be accepted of the L. but such as are described in the new Testament viz. men Seperated from al the abhominations of Antichrist 2. Cor. 6.17 gathered into the name of Christ Iesus Mat. 18.20 being made Disciples have receaved baptisme whereby they are counited into Christ Mat. 28.19 If any communion of men otherwise constituted viz men not Seperated not gathered together not gathered into Christs name not made Disciples not baptized truely with the baptisme of the new Testament if any such company of men do worship God ther worship is not accepted of God but as the L. sent Lyons among the Samaritanes for persuming to worship him in the land of Israel they being an vncircumcized coÌ„pany 2. King 17.24.25 as the L. punished the vagabond Iewes exorcists by the violence of an evil Spirit for naming the L. Iesus being an vnbeleeving vnbaptized company Act. 19 13-17 even so wil the L. be avenged on al them that joyning together to worship God have not Seperated themselves or calling vppon the name of the Lord do not depart froÌ„ iniquity 2. Cor. 6.17 2. Tim. 2.19 neither wil it serve to say that the worship is true bicause it is true conceaved prayer or true preaching or thanksgiving For true worship must be defined not only in the matter but cheefly in the forme For otherwise among the Antichristian papists Heretiques ther is true conceaved prayer preaching thaÌ„ks giving els in the old Testament ther was true Sacrificing among the Babylonians wheÌ„ they Sacrificed an oxe to the God of Israel Dan. 6.25.26 whereas it was manifested that no Sacrifice could be accepted that was offered with straunge fire Levit. 10.1.2 there for the Sacrifices of the Babylonians must needes be abhominable though the matter was true bicause the forme which cheefly consisted in the fire was false So though the matter of the worship of the new Testament be true viz conceaved prayer preaching praising God yet bicause it proceedeth not from the true fire which is alwayes living vppon the Altar Levit. 6 9-13 at Ierusalem that is in the true Church and Temâ—â—e of God bicause it is not inflamed by the true Spirit of Christ the true visible annoynting which is only in the true body the true Church Ephes 4.4 For there is one body and one Spirit Therefore the worship is not true worship visibly what it may be inuisibly I dispute not nor doe not censure at all but leave to the Lord and to every conscience The Second Argument The worship that is offered vp vnto the L. by a false Ministerie is a false worship ceÌ„ not visibly be judged true or accepted The worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is offered vp by a false ministery as hath been proved already Ergo the worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is a false worship cannot visibly be judged true or accepted The ground of this Argument is the same with the former wherefore as in the old Testament the worship that was performed in Israel by the Preists of Ieroboams devising which were not of the Linage genealogie of Aaron was a false worship could not be accepted visibly or be judged as accepted judging by the rules of the word 1. King 12 31-33 and as the inceÌ„se which Azariah the King of Iudah would have offered could not be accepted or so judged bicause it was not offered by the true Preists the Sonnes of Aaron 2. Chron. 26 16-22 and the King was punished with Leprosy for his presumption So al the worship which is offered vp vnto the Lord by a false ministery is visibly to be judged abhominable bicause Christ only offered vp to his Father the worship of the worshippers which his new Testament hath described no other Rev. 8.3.4 coÌ„pared with Revel 5 8-10 11.1 stil let it be remembred that I dispute not nor censure not the invisible things of the Lord. The third Argument Iewish that is literal stinted imposed book-worship is false worship The worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is Iewish that is literal stinted imposed boom-worship Ergo the worship of the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England is a false worship The ground of this argument is the Analogie and proportion which ther is betwixt the type and the truth the shadow and the substance the lettre and the Spirit the Old Testament with the ordinances therof the new Testament with the ordinances there of For seing the old Testament was a type of the new therfor the Church ministery worship government of the old Testament were types of the Church ministery worship government of the new Testament therfor the worship of the old testameÌ„t being lyteral beginning in the lettre as was carnal circumcision Rom. 2.29 did type forth the worship of the new Testament to beginne in the Spirit Ioh. 4.23.24 For the Lettre was a type of the Spirit Col. 2.17 Seing therfor that Reading the Law was a typical ordinance of the old Testament therfor literal stinted manifesting the letter book-worship it followeth that it is now abolished by Christ the thing signified by the literal Reading is now to be retayned in the new testament which is vttering matter out of the hart called the manifestation of the Spirit the demonstration of the Spirit the ministring of the Spirit the like by which phrases of Speech the Holy Ghost would teach vs that seing we are fet at liberty from the bondage of the law which was a Schoolmr to leade to Christ we are not therfor againe to be intangled with the yoke of bondage in any thing no not in this matter of stinted literal book worship which is flat ludaismâ— but we being placed in the liberty of the Spirit are to vse our gifts in Gods worship as the spirit giveth vtterance as we see the Apostles practised vppon the day of Pentecost when the promise of the Spirit was fulfilled vppon them as we see the Church of Counth practised 1. Cor. 14.15.16.26 12 7-â—1 He that desireth to know further of this particular of book-worship let him read the book lately published intituled The differences of the Churches of the Seperation wher this point is largely discussed which if it be the truth
I desire may be embraced if not I require an answer of them to whom it is specially directed to conclude this first point Mr. Bern. seing your VVorship for the most part is book-worship I conclude it to bee Iewish and so false VVorship Now I come to answer your cavils which are conteyned pag. 146-151 First you referre vs to the treatise in the end of your book I referre you for answer partly to Mr. Ains partly to the book intituled the differences of the Churches of the Seperation For I doe acknowledg that in the Old Testament Psalmes Prayers Prophecies were read out of a book yet further I answer three things 1. that it will not follow that seing it was so in the old Testament therfor it must be so in the new nay contrary it was so in the old Testament therefore it must not be so in the new This is the true manner of reasoning or thus In the Old Testament they had Psalmes Prophecyes Prayers read out of a book which was the Type the manifestation of the Lettre Therefore in the new Testament wee must have Psalmes Prophecyes Prayers brought out of the hart which is the Spiritual book of the New Testament wherein the Lord doth write his Lawes Heb. 8.10 which is the truth the manifestation of the Spirit 2. it will not follow that if it were granted that reading the Prayers Prophecyes Psalmes of Scripture out of the Originall tongs the Hebrue and Greek were lawfull that therefore the reading of the Apocrypha translations which are the workes of men is Lawful For theone is interpretation of a Language or Tong that is the vttering of matter from the knowledg of the Tongs and the gift of interpreting the other is reading wordes out of a book which a child of eight yeeres old may doe 3. neither will it follow that if it were found lawfull to read the English translation of the Scriptures therefore it shal be lawful to read your English Masse-book your book of Homilies and Articles your book of Canons For then why may you not read also Mr. Perkins vppon the Creed Henry Smyths Sermons or any other good Catechisme Commentary or Sermon book Secondly you prove your worship true by two reasons 1. Say you you worship no False God 2. you worship the true God with no False worship For you preach the true word admister the true Sacraments pray such prayers as are agreeable to the Scripture the forme of prayer taught by Christ if any things els be prescribed it is not imposed as worship Or if it were prescribed as a part of worship it doth not therefore follow that all the worship is False well I answer That Israell in Ietoboams tyme and after and when Aaron made the Calfe did not worship worship a false God yet their worship was false So may your worship be false though you worship the true God that hath revealed himself in the old Testament but their worship is not true by your owne confession therfor your consequent is not good that seing you worship the true God your worship must needes be true if the meanes wherby you worship be a false meanes devised by the wit of a man not taught in the word of God I say your worship is false so that place of Mat. 15.1 importeth that whosoever worshippeth God by any invented meanes taught by mans precept worshippeth God invayne Such is an image as the second commaundement teacheth now the meanes of your worship are false as first your false Church which is an Idol 2. your stinted devised imposed literal service book which is an Idol 3. your false Christ which is not your King Preist Prophet which is one of our Idols For though you truly beleeve concerning his person yet your Faith is false your doctryne false concerning his offices mediation therfor these meanes of your worship being false meanes they must needes be false worship therfor seing your doctryne is much of it false your communiō false your worship stinted book worship it followeth that your word is not the true word your Sacraments the signes of your false Faith communion are not true your prayers are not true whereas you plead that other things besides the word Sacrament prayer are not imposed as worship I answer what doe they then in your worship wil you mingle that which is no worshis worship together either they are worship or els let them be cast out of your worship further whereas you alledg that though some parts of your worship he false yet al shal not be false I grant it if your Church were true your ministery true but seing your Church ministery be false therfor though you do preach the true word administer the true Sacraments pray true prayers yet they can not be true worship offered vp in a false Church by a false ministery for the falsehood of the Church ministery doth essentially corupt the worship if al that is set vppon the table be either poisō or poysoned meate I say such is your worship For death is in your worship as Coloquintida was in the pot So that you see the distinction of true false doth most properly aperteyne to your worship as it doth also to your ministery Church as hath been shewed In the next place you declare vnto vs out of Philip Mornaeus the order of the worship of the old Testament out of the Scripture the parts of the worship of the new Testament out of Iustinus Martyr the order of worship in his tymes which I wil not contradict yet I plead that seing your Church is false your ministery false your service book a false meanes of worship therfor though al that you alledg were true it doth not follow that your worship is true wheras you plead that reading Col. 4.16 is cōmaunded as a part of worship I wish you to read the book intituled the differences of the Churches of the Seperation you shall have your answer and thus much for this Section The eleventh Section The next position is your third which is this viz. 3. In maintaining that it is not lawful to heare any ministers amongst vs whatsoever they be no◠to joyne in prayer with such as feare God among vs I for my part hold both vnlawful bicause your ministers are false ministers your people of false Churches Now how can wee who are the Church and body of Christ have any Spirituall communion with you who are the ministers and subjects of Antichrist 2. corinth 6 14-16 But heer you would needes have vs beleeve that ther be many that feare God among you that they are particularly known vnto vs for my part I do beleeve generaly that God hath his people in Babylon even among you who are Babel that is confusion I do also beleeve that those who are miscalled by the name of
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