an Aristocraty a Democratie In respect of Christ the King it is a Monarchy of the Eldership an Aristocratie of the brethren joyntly a Democratie or Popular government For Christ the King he ruleth by his owne lawes Officers The body of the Church the spowse of Christ ruleth as the wise vnder the husband according to the wil appointment of her husband The Elders rule as the stewards of Christ the King of the church which is the wise or spowse of the King Now as it is vnreasonable to appoint the steward or Servant of the King either over the King himself or over the Queen who is the Kings wife So is it Antichristian to place the Elders as Rulers over the whole body of the Church although every particular person and cause is subject to be ordered by that authority which the Church joyntly receaved from Christ and delegateth to them wee say therefore that the body of the Church hath all powre immediately from Christ and the Elders have al their powre from the body of the Church which powre of the Eldership is not exercized nor can not be vsed over or against the whole body of the Church for that is an Antichristian vsurpation but only it is exercised over and against particular persons and disorders arising in the Church the Eldership herein dealing for the body in the publique workes thereof breefly therefore to answer in generall to all your nine reasons vsed against popularity wee dispute not whither the Elders must rule or not but wee dispute who have the negative voice in their hands or who have the determining powre in them or who give the definitive sentence in al matters VVee say that the definitive sentence the determining powre the negative voice is in the body of the church not in the Elders yet we say the Elders are to lead governe al persons causes of the Church but to lead governe contrary to the definition voice of the body that we deny that we say is Antichristian Your first reason Mr. Bernard is that popularity is contrary to Gods order vnder the law and before the law vnder the law the powre of Governing was in the Levites befor the law it was in the first borne this governing powre was not receaved from the people vnder the law but from the Lord by Moses but the people only approved the Lords appointment I answer The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did type two things 1. That Priviledg and prerogative which Christ Iesus hath who is the first borne having the preeminence in all things Colos 1.18.1 Cor. 15.20 Revel 1.5 For Christ is the first most noble in the Church even the head Fountayne of al heavenly grace excellency 2. The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did shadow out the church Exod. 4.22.23 who is the first borne of al the men of the earth most deere and pretious to the Lord So that this reason of yours may thus be retorted vppon your selsf If the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the preheminence then Christ the visible Church which were shadowed out by the first borne by the Levites have the preminence powre in the new Testament But the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the powre preheminence by your owne confession Ergo Christ the visible church from Christ shadowed out by the first borne the Levites have the powre preheminence in the new Testament Remember for this particular that the first borne the first Fruites the Preists Levites Rings Princes of Iudah did al type forth vnto vs in the new testamēt the visible church the Saints next vnder Christ who is the head to the body of the Church as these scriptures do manifestly declare 1. Pet. 2.5 9. Revel 1.5 6. Col. 1.18 1. Cor. 15.20 The second of your nine reasons against popularity is that it is without warrant in the Apostles tyme The Apostles alwayes begune continued and composed church matters the body of the congregation were only made acquaynted with matters aliberty granted them to chose officers but they did never make any themselves nor attēpted any thing of themselves This argument Mr. Bern. is partly vntrue partly against your self Vntrue it is thus far forth that you say the body of the congregation never attempted any thing without Elders For I demaund of you what did the 120. persons in the first of the acts did they not chuse an Apostle into office ordeyne him but they had no Elders as yet for the holy Ghost was not come downe vppon them so the◠were no Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers Eph. 4.8.11 did not the Churches of Lystra Iconium Antiochia think you worship God admonish excommunicate during the tyme of the Apostles absence from them when as yet they had no Elders Act. 14 21-23 did not the Churches in Creta think you worship God governe in the absence of the Apostles Titus when as yet Elders were not appointed Tit. 1 5. you cannot deny that the Churches were established before they had officers if you do the Apostle saith that they that are to be chosen Elders must not be newly planted into the faith 1. Tim. 3.6 so by consequent from the tyme of establishing Churches til Election of officers ther must needes be a space of tyme for tryal of mens gifts conversation constancy in the faith during which tyme the Apostles being absent from the Churches I make no doubt but they did worship God performe the other parts of their Spiritual communion it they did so then I say look how many Churches were established by the Apostles So many examples ther are of the congregation attempting every thing almost without Elders so the Second reason of yours conteyneth so many vntruths as ther were Churches planted by the Apostles in the Acts who did not the first day of their planting institute their Elderships but some certayne competent space of tyme afterward wherin ther might be sufficient tryal knowledg of mens gifts qualifications fit for office this may suffice for your vntruths Now further your reason is against your self in this particular wherein you yeeld the cause that the body of the congregation had a liberty to chose their officers whence I reason thus against you They that have liberty to chose their owne officers to worship God publiquely before they have officers they have al the rest of Christs powre ministerial befor they have officers But the body of every congregation hath powre to worship God publiquely as you see have liberty to chose their owne officers as you confesse yet want Elders Ergo the body of every congregation hath al the rest of Christs ministerial powre before they have officers I say the body of
is Christs Kingdome may truly be termed a Monarchie Mat. 23 8-11 Ephes 4.5 Iam. 4.12 This powre which Christ hath in himself cannot passe from himself to any other For as his preisthood is eternal not passing frō him to another Heb. 7.24 so may it as truly be said of his other offices particularly of his Kingdome Monarchicall powre Neverthelesse 2. The Lord Iesus hath ordeyned appointed a certayne order to be observed in his absence in the true visible Church hath delegated a certaine powre authority to his Servants subjects for the preferving of that order for the execution of those ordinances This delegated powre authority is mentioned Marc. 13.34 1. Cor. 5.4 This delegated powre is avouched by the Papists to be in the Pope by the English Prelates to be in the Lord Bbs. Archdeacons By the Presbyterians to be in the Eldership by the brethren of the Seperation to be in the body of the Church primarily and fundamentally For if the Pope Prelates Presbytery or Body of the Church do say that the powre which is in Christ Iesus is in them they doe blaspheme most fear fully robbing Christ of his honour Regal powre make themselves even Christ him self The Pope therfor is not Antichrist for that he vsurpeth that regal powre which is proper to Christ neither are the Bbs. of England Antichrist for vsurping that proper kingly powre which is only in Christ nor the Presbytery Antichristian for challendging the powre Monarchical of Christ but they are al Antichristian for vsurping the delegated powre of Christ which he hath originally given to the body of his Church which is his mysticall body This delegated Ministerial powre which the Pope Bbs. Presbytery challendg they say commeth to them by succession from Christ The Pope he saith Christ hath given this ministerial powre to Peter only his successors the popes of Rome The Bbs. say Christ hath given this delegated powre to al the Apostles the Apostles have given it to the Bbs. their successors The presbyterians say that Christ hath given this ministerial powre to the presbytery or Eldership they conveigh it successively to the elders succeding to the worldes end in the Church Al these three opinions are equally Antichristian for they al of them establish succession which is Iewish so Antichristian For in the old Testament the preisthood was conveighed by successiuon Heer therfor I will prove vnto you by vndeniable arguments that the powre of Christ is not given eyther to the pope Bbs or presbytery but primarily it is given to the body of the Church First Argument If Christs ministerial powre be given by succession to the pope Bbs or presbytery primarily then the ministerie is before the Church Seing that ther must needes be a ministery before ther be any powre of Christ this consequent is infallible But the ministerie is not before the Church but after the Church For it ariseth out off the Church as a part off those Holy things which God hath given to his Church Therfor Christs ministerial powre is not given to the pope Bbs. or presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church They that affirme the ministery to be before the Church must needes hold that a minister is no relative to a Church but that a man may be a minister have no flock to attend on yea that ther may be is a ministery when where ther is no Church or that the chardges of other men are his chardg or that the world is his chardge they must also maintayne that all grace floweth from the ministerie to the Church that the ministerie is a more excellent ordinance then the Church that the Church hath no powre to make ministers but that the ministers have powre to make both ministers churches that ministers are properly by their office Apostles over the whole world for the converting of men planting of Churches the like absurdityes Second Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. presbytery then the ministery of Rome is a true ministerie and al they that are made ministers by the pope and his clergie are true ministers Then it is lawful to joyne with the true ministerie of Rome and then whosoever are ordeyned and not by a precedent ministery are falsely ordeyned and so are false ministers But the ministerie of Rome is no true ministery and they that are ordeyned by the pope and his clergie are no true but false ministers and it is vtterly vnlawful to joyne with the ministerie of Rome by the confession of al the Protestants and ministers may be ordeyned truly without ministers by the confession of the sincerest reformists Therefor Christs ministeriall powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. Presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church Third Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. presbytery then the Lord hath absolutely bound men to sinne seing that wee must needes joyne to the sinnes off the Ministers otherwise men cannot possiblie have enjoy the holy things of God For it is the ordinance of God that wee should vse the holy things this assertion doth avouch that we must have thē from the ministery therfor let ther sinnes be what they wil we must have them from their hands so must joyne to them in al ther sinnes But the L. hath not bound vs necessarily to joyne to other mens sinnes seing he hath commanded vs to Seperate from them this were to lay our sinnes vppon the Lord most blasphemously Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the pope Bbs. or presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church The fourth Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. or presbytery then the Lord hath made the Ministers Lords over the Church so that the Church can not have or enjoy any of the holy things any of the L. ordinances except they wil agree or consent them vnto for ther Holy things are in ther powre But the L. hath not made the Ministers Lords over his Church which is his inheritance but they may have enjoy his owne ordinances even al the Holy things contrary to the wil of wicked ministers Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the pope Bbs. or presbytery primarily but to the body of the Church The fifth Argument If Christs Ministerial powre commeth to the pope Bbs. or presbytery then the presbytery may excommunicate the whole Church Then the Bbs. may excommunicate ther whole dioceses or provinces then the pope may excommunicate the whole church vniversal on earth But the L. Bbs. of England say the Pope cannot excommunicate England The Reformists hold that the Prelates cannot excommunicate their diocesses by consequent just proportion the Presbytery cannot excommunicate that particular Church whereof they are Presbyters
Seperate from persons ceremonialy vncleane 3. if the Apostles commaund Seperation from the Iewes members of that true Church of the old Testament refusing Christ rayling against him Then much more ought we to Seperate from you the members of false Churches refusing persecuting Christ in his members new Testament vnto death as they have felt 4. if Antichristims Gentils be in degree equall as they are in the Holy Ghosts account as I have formeâ—ly proved theÌ„ from you who are AntichristiaÌ„s visible members of false Churches ought Seperation to be made 5. although you are not excommunicate from the true Church whereof you never were yet you entertaine excommunicates from true Churches you are cages of every vncleane hateful bird if I must avoyd private familiar communion with excommunicate wicked persons then much more must I shun Spirituall holy communion with them except any man wil be so ridiculous as to say that the Hoâ—y Spiritual communion afordeth more liberty to sinne sinners then private civil communion in meate drinck c. so by your own confession al the places of Scripture alledged against you by vs may by just due proportion be applyed vppon you being as you stand in your constitution worship false Churches false worshippers persecuters of Christ his truth faithful witnesses To end al you say that it cannot be proved that it is sinn to heare the word preached to receave the Sacraments of one that hath converted him is called of the church wel Mr. Bern. I vnderstand your drift I wil give you an answer I say in your assemblies men do not convert to the true visiole faith of Christ taught in his word viz in the new Testament nor you ever converted man therto but pervert men from it as this book of yours al your railings against our testimony do plainly evince what you do invisibly the Lord knoweth every mans owne conscience can speak that feeleth but what say you of the Popish preachers do you think they convert none invisiblie what doe you gaine by this fancy neither they nor you convert to the faith or new Testament of Christ but they pervert meÌ„ from you you pervert men from the Seperation both hinder draw from the truth what you do invisiblie I seek not nor ought not to respect for visible walking yet know that we hold that ther are 7000. that are of the Lords Election in your false Churches So are ther in Rome it self Revel 18.4 whence did al the worthy witnesses of Christ arise as the waldenses Hus Prage Luther the Martyrs in Q. Maries dayes in EnglaÌ„d at other tymes in other places did they not come out of the bottomlesse pit of Antichristianisme being converted there yet I hope you wil not say that they might stil joyne to that ministery yet the ministers then had the calling of that church such as it was if therfor the argumeÌ„t be not good for them no more is it for you for you wil be proved to be AntichristiaÌ„ Ministers as truly in quality though not asmuch in quantity as they are this shal suffice for answer to this point The ninth Section Your next point wherto I will speak is the sixth in nomber which you hold error but I hold as a truth if it be wel conceaved it is this 6. That the word truly preached Sacraments rightly administred are no infallible tokens of a true Church I am sure you doe or may remember that proprium cum specie convertitur as the Logicians speak For example Every man is reasonablâ— every reasonable creature is a maÌ„ Now al I say is that the word truly preached the Sacraments duely administred are no properties of a true church For although this be true that whersoever the word is truly preached ex officio the Sacraments rightly administred ther is a true Church yet I denie the other viz That wheâ—soever ther is a true Church the word is truly preached the Sacraments are rightly administred For these two are not convertible but this I hold that a true Church powre to preach the word truly and administer the Sacraments duely are convertible and therefore that the powre of our Lord Iesus Christ given to the Church is an essential propertie of a true Church and therefore convertible with a true Church Now sometyme it falleth out that a true Church hath not the word ministerially preached nor the Sacraments administred namely when it wanteth Officers as it sometyme falleth out This point also is plaine enough if you have not loft your Logick therefore I leave it requiring your answer Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the ninth Section I cannot find in all Mr. Bern. book intituled the Sep Schisme any thing in opposition to this Section of my lette vnto him whereby I collect that he yeeldeth it as a truth it is not material to the point of Seperation any thing at al only the truth must be defended for the Author of truths sake that the Lord his truth may in all things be honored the summe of al this Section is thus much that as not the act of reasoning is the true propertie of a man but the faculty to reason Non ratiocinari sed rationale So not the actual preaching administring of the Sacraments but the powre of Christ to have vse al the holy things of God is the true property convertible in fallible token of a true Church For as every man although he be reasonable yet doth not actually vse reasoÌ„ at al tymes as namely being an infaÌ„t being a sleep being in a Lethargie or sincope So the true Church though it have alwayes powre to al the holy things yet actually it doth not vse the powre But I list not to speak much concerning this particular which is more Scholasticall then profitable the rather seing Mr. Bernard contendeth not about it The tenth Section The next position is according to your order the twelvth viz That every of our assemblies are false churches al our ministers false ministers our worship a faise worship you cal this en or I cannot beleeve you wherfor I declare them vnto you particularly in order after this manner But bicause your Wordes seem to import that you doe not defend all your assemblies to be true Churches all your Ministers true Ministers the worship of every assemblie to be a true worship for that I gesse by your covenant you exclude dumb Ministers the assemblies over which they are the worship offered vp by them Therefore I wil onely plead against your parish Church at worksap and your owne Ministerie and the worship offered vp by you for your people in the parish Church at worksap First for your assemblie I vse this reason to prove it no true Church wher the people are not Holy Elect faithful having not entered
vs exclude your dumb Preists idle bellyes and al the rable of the conformists if you wil which are 9. parts of 10. and then I think you are excluded your self among them I wil plead only against the best minister that standeth by Law in your assemblies 1. he entereth not in by the dore seing the dore is only in the Sheepsold that is in the true Church seing you are a False Church as is proved your dore cannot be true 2. The porter that is as you say Gods Spirit but I think rather the porter to be the watchman that is the whole Church Mat. 13 33-37 he openeth not to you for you convert none to the true visible Faith of the new Testament or if you did it doth not prove your true Pastorship seing Shepheards do not make sheep but feed them it should only prove that you are Spiritual Fathers that convert men which private persons doe as you have heard 3. he doth not know them nor is knowne of his Sheep For of 300 perhaps he wil not acknowledg above 30. to be sheep the rest he thinketh goates the goates wil not acknowledg him as Shepheard but hate fly from him 4. he doth not lead them by sound doctryne to perfection◠but by False doctryne perverteth them from the truth which blasphemously he proclaymeth dayly in his pulpit to be Brownisme Schisme Heresy c. 5. he doth not lead them by Godly life for if the cheef part of Godlines be the true worship of God how doth he lead them in Godlines that leadeth them vp downe in your False Church Ministery VVorship Government blind fold like the men of Sodom that sought Lots dore Therefore I dare in the true feare of the Lord cal the best of you al a Spiritual theef a robber yea a VVolf that cometh to kil rob and destroy not that you so entend to doe or that you do so wilfully yet I would have you Mr. Bern. Look wel to your self for I dare not cleare you from sinninge against your conscience who have acknowledged the truth but for that you do so indeed by necessary consequent For seing you are in a False Church Ministery and vse a False worship submit to a False Government you must needes by defending al this Falsehood teaching it to others perswading them to the obedience therof perswade them to al these abhominations of Antichrist so do rob them kil them raven them like wolves theeves robbers For men may rob kil destroy ignorantly as Paul did when he was a Pharisee as I my self did when I was one of your Preists as many do in popery except you wil say that they al do sinne against their conscience Act. 3.17 1. Tim. 1.13 And heer you have a fling at our ministers wil needes have them no Lawful ministers you dare not say false this you endevour to prove bicause that we are not made Ministers by Successive ordination First Mr. Be. I tel you bicause of your importunity in this particular of ordination by Succession that if it must needes be which we deny vtterly that we have it if you have it for we were made Preists by your prelates why then do you condemne our ministery say you why do you condemne the ministery of the Church of Rome say I For if you may have a true ministery yet condemne the ministers of the Church of Rome from whence yours came then may we have a true ministery yet condemne your ministery whence ours cometh this I speake not for that I plead it but to stop your mouth For I vtterly renounce your orders which I had from Wickā prelate of Lincolne when I was chosen Fellow of Christs College in Cambridg I receaved doe retayne my ministery from that particular Church wherof I am Pastor which hath the whole powre of Christ ministeriall delegated to her from Christ her Husband when he contracted with her Secondly you neieher can nor do prove Succession in the new Testament For that which you alledg for the Succession of the old Testament I say it was typical is abolished by Christ For do you think this is a good argument one Preist begat another in the old Testament therfor one minister must ordeine another in the new Testament why may you not plead after this manner Therfor one Preist may beget another Preist in the new Testament wheras you say that Preists did consecrate preists which consecration was ther ordination I deny it vtterly I prove the contrary that during the captivity of Babilon ther were many priests borne none consecrated only for their admission in to the preists office it was requisite that they should shew their Genealogie Nehe. 7.64 65. but their ordination was their generation or byrth though I deny not but when they entered into the performance of their office ther were some rites performed which was no part of their ordination but I would know of you what is ordination is it any thing but the declaring of the partie elected approved to be in office by prayer for him a chardg given vnto him can none do this but a precedent officer Againe for the old Testament I say God created the first Preist viz Adam then til Aaron men begat Preists for the eldest in the Family were the Preists Moses who was the yonger brother no preist ordeined Aaron his Sonnes after that Preists begat preists til Christs tyme then Christ appointed officers in the Church Apostles made Evangelists Evangelists Apostles ordeyned Bbs. Deacons al this I confesse Mr. Ber. what is this to Succession in the new Testament I shew you plainly that the Church Elected Mathias ther being yet no Apostles Act. 1. ther being Apostles the Church elected Deacons Act. 6. Elders Act. 14. seing they performed election which is the contract why may they not performe all For ordination is nothing in respect of Election as you may see in al Societyes corporations whatsoever The contract which is the mutual consent of a man woman for mariage maketh man and wife before God Election which is the mutual consent of the pastor his Flock maketh a man pastor of his Flock So that in this particular Mr. Bern. you show your willfullnes and blindnes asmuch as in any thing in your book although I doubt not but it is the best that can be pleaded for Antichrist thus much for the second part of this Section The third part of this Section is that your worship is a false worship wherin as I have dealt in the two former points so wil I deale in this viz first prove the position Secondly answer your cavils To prove your worship a false worship I vse these Arguments following First Argument The true worship of the L. cannot possiblie be offered vp in a false Church The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are
PARALLELES CENSVRES OBSERVATIONS Aperteyning TO THREE SEVERAL WRITINGES 1. A Lettre written to Mr. Ric. Bernard by Iohn Smyth 2. A Book intituled The Seperatists Schisme published by Mr. Bernard 3. An Answer made to that book called the Sep. Schisme by Mr. H. Ainsworth WHEREVNTO ALSO ARE ADIOYNED 1. The said Lettre written to Mr. Ric. Bernard divided into 19. Sections 2. Another Lettre written to Mr. A. S. 3. A third Lettre written to certayne Brethren of the Seperation By Iohn Smyth Mat. 24.23 Then if any shall say vnto you Lo heer is Christ or there beleeve it not Vs 24. For there shall arise false Christs false Prophets shall shew great signes wonders so that if it were possible they should deceave the very elect Vs 25. Behould I have told you before Mat. 7.15 Beware of false Prophets which come to you in Sheeps clothing but inwardly are Ravening wolves Vs 16. Yee shall know them by their Fruytes Ioh. 10.1 He that entreth not in by the dore into the Sheepfold but climeth vp another way he is a theef a robber Vs 10. The theef commeth not but for to steale to kil to destroy 2. Cor. 11.13 For such false Apostles are deceiptful workers transforme them selves into the Apostles of Christ Vs 14. And no marvayle for Sathan himself is transformed into an aungel of light Printed 1609. TO EVERY ONE THAT SEEKETH AFTER the truth in sinceâ—ity Salutations NOt every thing Gentle Reader which a man writeth privately sodaynly to his frend is fit to be published openly to the view of the world neyther did I think that this lettre written to Mr. Bernard in private vppon three dayes meditation should have been made publique in print to every mans eye censure which had I thought should have come to passe I would with better advyse leâ—sure so with more mature judgment have conceaved penned it But seing it is justly occasioned through Mr. Bernards importunity in his late published book intituled the Seperatists Schisme his slaunderous misconstructions misreports vp downe the country behind my back that this lettre of myne is strongly suspected of error bitternes rashnes vncharitablenes imputations of theÌ„ like nature by reason thereof my seâ— falleth vnder the hard vnknowne happily vndeserved censure of many well affected to the truth wheâ—eat I cannot but be much wounded both in myne owne soule inwardly in my good name outwardly which is alwayes better moâ—e to be esteemed then a good oyntment I thought it much more tolerable to adventure my self by exposing this vntymely byrth I meane this sodaynly conceaved penned lettre to the variable censures of the multitude theÌ„ by burying it in darknes silence like vnto one stil borne to superinduce a strong presumption of iustly imputed blame vppon my self by reason of this present lettre Therefore I doe earnestly intreat every one frend or other into whose handes this present writing may come to esteeme it as it is indeed even a sodayne private lettre of one freÌ„d vnto another not to respect it as it now falleth out to be a publique wriring proclaymed as it were vppon the house top I cannot nor may not with fidelity alter one sentence or word of it but as Mr. Bernard hath it copyed in his hands so have I published it word for word without any the least chandg to my knowledg least Mr. Bernard should say it is not the lettre he had from mee that his slaunderous collections aspersions cast vppon mee in respect of the lettre may be perceaved by them that read this lettre compare it with his book notes speeches And seing necessity enforceth the identity of this lettre without correction eyther of matter or wordes I beseech the Gentle Reader frendly favorably to construe all things interpret them in the better pâ—rt promising that if any eyther error in matter or tartnes of speech be manifested vnto mee as my sinne I shal willingly confesse repent it before the world And so vppon hope of a favorable construction I desire to advertise further that Mr. Bernard had in his hands this lettre of myne six or seven monthes before he published this his book intituled the Seperatists Schisme which book as may be perceaved by this letter compared therwith is principally directed in opposition reprehension thereof but how litle cause Mr. Bernard had so to doe may now appeare For he should have answered before he had opposed but that which he doth oppose is indeed answered already in the lettre by prevention anticipatioÌ„ that I shal not need to make answere a fresh to Mr. Bernard he being now twise answered once before his book was published now againe since by Mr. Henry Ainsworth Only I desire the reader to be advertised that ther are some particulars wherein Mr. Ainsworth hath lest mee the truth in the open playne field to shift for our selves In regard whereof as also bicause of Mr. Bernards misaledging misconstruing divers parts of my letter written vnto him I have thought meet not barely to publish this lettre but parallele-wise to compare Mr. Bernards book Mr. Ainsworths answer this my lettre together as also to annexe a few animadversioÌ„â— observations aperteyning therevnto that by this meanes the agrement difference being discovered the truth may appeare where it is Now although it be a greevous thing vnto me to raise vp adversaries against me without cause especially brethren of true Churches yet seeing I am necessarely interessed to defend the truth manifested in myne owne writings which I cannot possibly doe but by way of opposition theâ—for it commeth to passe that will I will I I must needes answer the opponent left I betray the truth which by due order I am particularly called singled out to defend Wherfor for more evidence sake I have caused this lettre written to Mr. Bern. to be divided into 19. Sections in every Section wher need required I have made parallels animadversions observations for severall purposes as the reader shal perceave in perusing theÌ„ Finally vppon perswasion of frends for further cleering of the truth I have annexed two other lettres the one written to Mr. A.S. a Minister of the Church of England conteyning certayne principall mayne groundes of our cause which I desire may diligently be considered of every one that is willing to see the truth the other written to ce tayne brethren of the Seperation for the confirming establishing of them in the truth against the assaults of Sathan transforming himself into an aungel of light therby the better to deceave the simple howsoever it be needlesse to publish any thing further for the cleering of the truth of our cause out of those mysts foggs which subtil disputers pleaders for corâ—uption have like jannes jambres those Egiptian jugleâ—s cast before mens eyes that they cannot readely
binding losing is also given vnto two or thre faithful ones wheresoever joyned together in the world The consequent of this argument only is doubtfull which may thus most manifestly be confirmed expoundeÌ„d when Christ is given then with Christ al things els are given Rom. 8.32 Christ I say with al his apurtenances when Christ the King is given to the faithful then Christs Kingdom is given vnto them then have they Christs powre to administer that Kingdom according to his direction when Christ the Preist is given to the faithful then Christs Sacrifice is given vnto them powre to administer al the efficacy of his Preisthood vnto the Saynts according to his direction when Christ the Prophett is given to the faythful then Christs Prophesy or the Holy doctryne of Salvation is giveÌ„ to the Church with powre for the dispensing therof according to his owne ordinance bâ— reason wherof the Saynts are said to have an anoynting or Chrisma from him that is Holy 1. Ioh. 2.20 therfor are called Christians Act. 11.26 being anoynted to be Kings 〈◊〉 Preâ—sts vnto God Revel 1.6 Prophets Act. 2.17.18 Seing then that by Christ the 〈◊〉 Prest Prophet who is given to the Saints the Saynts are made Kings Preists Pâ—â—phets therfor as Kings they have a ministerial powre given them of binding losing 〈◊〉 so â—orth of the rest The eight Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 compared with 1. Cor. 5.4.5 Mat. 6.12 Luk. 17.3 â—â—â—n these places of Scripture I collect this argument If one brother hath powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent privately to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent privately then a communion of faithful men have powre to retaine the sinnes of an impenitent member publiquely to remit the sinnes of one that is penitent publiquely But one brother hath powre given him by Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother privately impenitent and to remitt the sinnes of a brother privately penitent Ergo a communion of faithfull people have powre to retayne the sinnes of a member publiquely impenitent to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely penitent To the same sense the argument may be framed after this manner If witnesses admonishing a brother have powre given them by Christ to retaine the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse then a communioÌ„ of faithful men have powre to retain the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance But witnesses admonishing a brother have powre from Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse Ergo a communion of faithful men have powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance The premisses of both those arguments are evident out of Mathew Luke the conclusion is the Apostles direction to the Corinths The ninth Argument from Eph 5.30.32 1.22.23 Revel 21.2 22.17 From these Scriptures compared together I draw this argument The wife hath powre immediately from her husband the body hath powre immediately from the head The visible Church or a communion of faithful people are Christs spowse the wise of the lamb Christ mystical body Ergo the visible Church or a communion of faithful ones have Christs ministeriall powre immediately from him Againe As the body hath life sense motion powre from the head the hands feet have powre from the body So the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church as the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church But it is true in nature that the body hath life sence motion powre froÌ„ the head al the members have powre from the body Ergo the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church viz the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church By al which arguments put together it appeareth most evidently that Christs ministeriall powre of binding losing is given to the body of eyery true visible Church and that all the Officers of the Church have their powre and authority to administer derived vnto them from Christ through the body of the Church where they administer And thus have I proved evidently as I take it both that Christs ministerial powre commeth not by successive ordination by the hands of the ministery that it is immediately given to the body of the Church And heer for your further informacion Mr. Bern. I wish you to take notice that succession is a typical ordinance of the Old Testament therfor abolished by Christs comming For the Apostle wisheth vs to take heed of Iewish Fables Genealogies 1. Tim. 1 4. Tit. 1.14 bicause these genealogies were of necessity for the carnal ordinances of the old Testament but the Spiritual genealogie succession is for the new testament In the old Testament they had carnal parents a carnal seed carnal children carnal csrcumcision carnal commaundemeÌ„ts a carnal temple a carnal cittie a carnal preisthood a carnal Kingdom in the new Testament we have spiritual parents a spiritual seed which is the word spiritual children viz the faithful circumcision made without hands spiritual commaundements a spiritual temple an heavenly cittie spiritual Preists Kings a spiritual kingdom preisthood Therfor succession in the old Testament was carnal by genealogie if you therfor wil set vp a carnal succession in the new Testament by ordination for the ministery you must do it also 1. For the Church so fetch it from Rome 2. For the baptisme so fetch it from Rome 3. For the L. Supper so fetch it from Rome 4. For the Faith so fetch it from Rome 5. For excommunication so fetch it from Rome so forth of the rest this is to tie all Churches to the vnity succession of the chayre of Rome as in the old Testament al were tyed to the vnity succession of the temple at Ierusalem Herin therfor you see how you vanish away in your jmaginations by setting vp succession approving your self before you be aware a Iew a Papist an Antichristian this shal suffice for the matter of ordination or succession wherby it apeareth to be a Iewish Popish Antichristian devise In the next place let vs heer your nine reasons Mr Bernard which you bring to confute this our faith and most evident truth of God wher first in generall note that wee doe not deny but that the powre of the Church is for order sake committed into some particular persons hands who in the Churches name for the Churches good in the Churches presence are to handle al Church matters therfor whereas your 9-reasons are brought against popularity as you cal it you are to remeÌ„ber that Christs church in several respects is a Monarchie
his Ministeriall powre extraordinarily from heaven VVhy you confesse that powre of binding and losing was given before Christs ascension but now you would prove by this place Ephes 4. that the powre of binding losing is given after Christs assension and that these gifts and this powre are given together is not this to contradict your self hereby you see the weakenes of your reason For you must distinguish betwixt the powre of binding and losing which the Disciples had committed vnto them before Christs ascension and betwixt the gifts of the day of Pentecost But what are those gifts mentioned in that place of Ephes 4.8.11.12 and vnto whome are those gifts given I will declare it vnto you and so your mouth shal be â—â—opt These gifts which are said to be given to men are those foure sorts of Officers which the Apostle mentioneth vs 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers for the two last are one office These officers with their gifts are said to be given to men who are these men vnto whome these officers with their gifts are giveÌ„ are they not the Church is not the office of an Elder Pastor or Teacher the L. gift to the Church This place you see therefore is most pregnant against your opinion as may appeare thus That which is given by Christ to the Church is in the powre possession of the Church The officers offices of the Church are given to the Church Ergo the officers offices of the Church are in the powre possession of the Church Wherfor I say vnto you that the gifts of preaching administration of the Sacraments Governing are given vnto some meÌ„ but the office officers indued with these gifts are given vnto the Church who have powre to appoint them to their office who do receave both their office powre to administer in their office from the Church vnto whome the office powre of Christ is given primarily being the next Lord therof vnder Christ the Monarch And for your similie of the parts receaving their properties from God not from the body it is perversly applyed For this is the true vse and application of the similie as the head communicateth all the powre facultie which any part hath from it self to that part by the body so the head Christ communicated his powre to the parts and officers of the Church by the body of the Church which is Christ mysticall I confesse some parts of the body have some special properties and qualities which they receave not from the head as the Stomach hath the quality Chilificandi the liver Sangnificandi c. not from the head but the powre and faculty to vse the property it hath from the head So some members of the Church have special gifts given them of God but the powre of vsing those gifts they have from the head Christ by the meanes of the body which is the pipe that from the Fountaine conveigheth all powre Ecclesiastical to every officer The Fifth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the Scripture doth not lay the Government vppon the people nor reproveth them for sussering abuse of Holy things but vppon the governors civil Ecclesiastical Ezech. 22.26 1. Sam. 2 17. 1. King 13. Mat 23. Revel 2.1.8.12.18 3.17.14 I answer breefly from the Type to the truth concerning matters of the Old Testament Seing now the Saynts are all of them made Kings and Preists vnto God Revelat. 1.6 Or as the Apostle Peter saith Basileion hierateuma 1. Pet. 2.9 a Kingly Preisthood Therefore now in the New Testament the Saynts succeede in the place of the Kings and Preists of the Old Testament in Ecclesiasticall causses and as they were burdened with Government and reproof for profanation of holy things so are the Saynts the members of the visible Church now burdened with Government Ecclesiasticall and reproof for violating the Holy things committed to their custody fidelity therfor I reason from your owne confession against you thus If Kings Preists in the Old Testament were chardged with Government and blamed for violation of holy things Then in the New Testament the Saints who are Kings Preists are chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things But Kings Preistts in the old Testament were chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things Therfor the Saints in the new Testament are chardged with government ecclesiastical blamed for violation of Holy things And thus you see Mr. Ber. how your owne weapon entreth into your owne bowels concerning the places of the Revelation that the Aungels of the seaven Churches were chardged with government blamed for abuse of the Holy things not the body of the Church I say herein you vtter foule vntruths For Chap. 1. vs. 4-7 the Apostle witeth to the 7. Churches of Asia wisheth grace peace to the Churches all the members of the Churches Chap. 2.11 at the end of every Epistle the Apostle maketh application of every Epistle to al that have eares to the particular Churches wher for I wonder at your shamelesse ignorance that should thus falsely belye the Scriptures abuse the reader To turne the point of this reason of yours also vppon your self I say thus If Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with gouernment abuse of holy things though the message be sent to the aungel to be published to the whole church then the whole churches are charged therwith viz with government violatioÌ„ of holy things But Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with the government abuse of Holy things though the message be sent to the Aungel of every Church to be published to the whole Church Therfor the whole Churches are chardged with the government violation of the holy things Thus much breefly concerning your fifth reason heer you make a digression to prove vnto vs that Matt. 18.17 Tell the Church must be expounded Tel the Governors For confirmation whereof you bring vs seaven reasons which I will handle in order Your first reason to prove that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this for that otherwise Christ could not be vnderstood for if he had brought in a strange course not heard of before nor then practised no man could vnderstand his meaning Seing therfor before then after the practise was to tel to the Elders or governors therfor tel to the Church is tel to the Governors or Elders A las for you Mr. Bern. this is borrowed stuffe yet stark naught For it is but froth chaffe what is the chaffe to the wheat Do not you think that the whole Gospell is a mystery which was kept secreat from the beginning of the world is not the visible Church of the new Testament with all the ordinances thereof the cheef principal part of the Gospel therfor seing this ordinance of telling the Church is a part of the Gospel it was
committeth against his brother now to hate his brother by suffering sinne to rest vppon him not to admonish bring him to repentance is a greevous sinne of one man against his brother so it is a very greevous hatred for a man to suffer the whole Church vnreformed from sinne therfor by this place or Christ you gaine nothing but rather leese the cause which is hereby confirmed viz that til a man doe his duty to the vtmost to his brethren he cannot offer his gift now his vtmost duty is either to bring him to repentance or to leave him impenitent al them that justifie his sinne in their impeniteÌ„cy so in the violation of the holy things For they being al poluted with his sinne have deprived themselves of title powre to the holy things so vsing them doe violate them al that partake with them therin partake with sinne shall receave of their judgments The place 1. Cor. 11.28 is also against you For the Apostle willeth the Corinths to examine themselves how they have performed their duty to God their brethren in the first second table finding themselves to be cleere then to eate drinck otherwise finding our selves to faile in that commaundement Mat. 14 15-17 wee are poluted by contagion cannot eate drinck without hurt judgment bicause we have not judged our selves aright But your last place Mr. Ber. is somthing to the purpose viz. 2. Cor. 12.21 13.1.2 compared together for I wil help to vrge your argument then give you an answer Your argument may thus be framed If the Corinths might without sinne have communion with the Church of the Corinths after they were once twise admonished did not repent then may we have communion with persons obstinate impenitent in the holy things without sinne in vs. But the Corinths had communion with the Church of Corinth poluted with sin after once twise admonition without sinne Ergo we may have communion with persons obstinate in sinne in the holy things without sinne in vs. This is the force of your reason wherto I answer that you must prove your minor For it is weake the places of Scripture do not confirme it For you must know that the latter Epistle to the Corinths was the second admonition as may be seen 2. Cor. 13.2 before the despising of the second admonition they could not be judged obstinate impenitent in sinne now for the ful sufficient confirmation of your minor you should prove vnto vs two things First that the Corinths did despise Pauls second admonition in this his second Epistle Secondly that if they did despise this his second admonition the faithful among the Corinths did keep communion without sinne with that poluted obstinately impenirent company now bicause I know this is to hard a task for you I will therefore conclude that this argument of yours is insufficient to prove your purpose Your last least reasoÌ„ wherby you endevour to prove it lawful to vse the holy things though obstinate impenitent sinners be present in communion is that Gods commaundement must be obeyed absolutely another mans sinne cannot dissolve the bond of allegiance betwixt God man which our position seemeth as you pretend to dissolve seing we say that a man must not keep communion in the holy things if wicked men be present in communion with vs To this argument I answer thus viz that God indeed commaundeth vs to pray heare the word communicate in the Sacraments but he also prescribeth both the persons wherwith the manner how we must performe these actions prayer hearing the word partaking in the Sacraments are actions of communion ther is in the preformance of them a manner of doing modus agendi to be observed wee must therfor respect two things in performing these actions of Religion First that our communion be such as it ought to be for I may not keep communion with Iewes Turks Pagans Papists but with Christians viz true Christians such as the new Testament describeth ought to be members of the visible Church which is the mystical body of Christ Secondly that the actions of our communion be performed after that holy manner order as the new Testament of Christ teacheth as that prayer be conceaved not read out of a service book that prophecy come out of the hart not be read out of a book as Homilies be that baptisme be administred simply as Christ teacheth without Godfathers the crosse questions to infants that the L. Supper be vsed sitting not kneeling finaly that al the parts of worship be clensed according to the primitive institution not vsed with those polutions which the man of sinne hath cast vppon them breefly we must worship God with the meanes he hath apointed as the 2. coÌ„maundemeÌ„t teacheth after the maÌ„ner he hath taught as the third commaundement informeth otherwise ther is idolatry committed in violating the second commaundement worshipping God by other meanes then he hath ordemed profanation of the name of God in violating the third commaundement when his ordinances are not so vsed as he hath prescribed So that to speak directly to your objection the bond of alleageance betwixt God vs is preserved kept inviolable by our position for we teach that men must pray heare the word receave the Sacraments but in a true visible communion of Sains as the Lord hath appointed not with al manner of persons as theeves muâ—derers witches conjurers Papists Atheists Dronkards perjured persons c. as in your Church nor after your manner which is devised by man as Ieroboam devised in Israel but as the Lord hath in the new Testament taught vnto vs. And heer Mr. Bern. you take vppon you to reduce the places of Scripture which wee alledg for Seperation from your assemblies to certaine topical or categorical heads so give them answer according to your fashion as thus the places that forwarne Gods people to Seperate vnder the law are thus to be taken 1. From idols of false Gods as Israel from heathenish Gods 2. From Idols of the true God as Indah from Israels calves 4. From persons ceremonially polluted The places vrging Seperation vnder the Gospel are thus to be taken 1. From lewes not receaving Christ but rayling against him 2. From Gentils without Christ 3. From Antichrist vnder the shew of Christ persecuting Christians 4. From familiar companying with excommunicates or wicked men But say you what are al these places to vs who are not vnder any of these heads of reference I answer you Mr. Ber. that your Church is respectively vnder al these topical places which you mention excepting the first For 1. you make Idols of the true God in setting vp your own inventions making Christ a King Preist Prophet as you jmagine 2. you ought much more to Seperate from persons morally vncleane if the lewes ought to
covenant to walk in all Gods wayes standing in confusion with every abhominable liver subject to al the Antichristian orders officers set over them deprived of the powre of Christ for ther mutuall help edification ther is no true Church But the parish assemblie of worksap is such go it is no true Church The Major is manifest by these Scriptures compared together Math. 15.9 Apocal. 14 9-11 Ephes 1.1.4 2. Corinth 6 14-18 Math. 28.20 5.19 Apocal. 18.4 Math. 5.24 The Minor you dare not deny I assure my self For you have at least five or six hundreth communicants you account not past 30. or 40. of them faithful al of you submit to Antichrist his lawes courts dayly especially your self who cap knee runne ride after Antichrists officers courts feeing him with your money yea you plead for them write your peny pamphlets for them and yet once yon wrote against them and lost your vicaridg in your testimonie against them but bicause you could not buy and sell except you receaved the mark of the beast now you are content to yeeld to all yea to plead for all that you may tâ—affique with your marchandize Secondly for your self I hold you to be no true minister of Christ For your Church being false how can your ministerie be true For if the Fountaine be bitter the streame caÌ„ not be sweet your Church is false your ministerie which ariseth out of your Church as astreame from a Fountaine is false also Thirdly your worship which commeth from a false Church a false ministerie cannot be true but is false in that double respect but particularly I except these things against your worship 1. That it is qualified with your false ministerie 2. That it is offered vp in a false Church 3. That it is offered vp to God in the behalf of al your people which are many of theÌ„ I presume lewd persons al of them subjects of Antichrists Kingdome this I except against your conceaved prayers Against your service book I except thus besides the former 1. It is devised invented by the man of sinne 2. That it is imposed vppon you your people of necessity 3. That it is stinted limited the Spirit therby quenched 4. That it is read vppon a book 5. That it is corrupt in all the particular errors objected by the Puritans All these 8 particulars are contrary to these Scriptures compared together Roman 8.26 Math. 15.9 Apocal. 5.8 8.3 1. Thessal 5.19 Apocal. 9.20 16.13.14 Act. 16.18 19 13-16 Math. 24 23-26 1. Corinth 12.7 and 2.4 and 14.15.26 Ierem. 23.16 Deut. 13.3 Col. 3.16 Iam. 5.13 Ioh. 4.24 Mr. Ber. I would not have you passe by these things lightly but weigh them wel and let vs have your answer vnto them Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the tenth Section This Section consisteth of three maine branches which Mr. Bern. handleth from pag. 109. to the 150. of his book called the Sep. Schis Heer therfor I must endevor two things First to prove by vndeniable arguments drawne from the Scriptures that 1. the asseÌ„blies Ecclesiastical of England are false churches 2. the Ministers administring the holy things to these Ecclesiastical assemblies are false Ministers 3. the worship performed by the ministery people in the communion visible to be a false worship Secondly Mr. Bern. objections cavils must be refuted wher the reader must be advertised that in performing this latter part I shall not endevour to handle all things that Mr. Bernard propoundeth for ther is much truth by him propounded which I with him consent vnto only the points of difference shal be discusted the rest omitted In the first place therfor to deale as they say positively Kataskeuasticos I prove that al the Ecclesiastical assemblies of the Land as they stand established by law are false Churches that is to say not framed or constituted according to that presideÌ„t which Christ hath left for the constituting of the Churches of the new Testament but are framed according to the invention of man even that man of sinne Antichrist the Archenemy of Christ The first Argument from Mat. 3.6 Iam. 2.18 Rom. 1.7 1. Cor. 1.2 Eph. 1.1 Mat. 28.19 From these places of Scripture compared together I collect an argument which may thus be framed The true Churches of Christ were established of men that did repent beleeve and shew their faith by their workes that were Saints faithful visiblie of these only The assemblies Ecclesiastical of England are not established only of such persons but of al sorts of persons even the most profane of the Land being compelled by law to submit therto Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true established churches of Christs institution Heer it may be considered that before the Churches of the new Testament were established the gospel was preached vppon the publishing of the gospel men were converted to the faith of Christ being made the Disciples of Christ so many of them whither Iewes or Gentils as gladly receaved the word were baptized added to the Church continued in the Apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread prayer this was the constitution walking of the Churches of the Apostolique institution therfor the Churches of England being raised by compulsion without procedent teaching conversion to the faith making of them Disciples of Christ being newly hardly drawne from the Egipsian darknes of most palpable Antichristianisme being many of them brutishly ignorant prosessed Papists vild Atheists witches conjurers theeves dronkards blasphemers al of them submitted to Antichristian Lords Lawes to Popish Sacrificing Preists for their ministers were not newly ordeyned to a stinted devised corrupted Popish service book or worship they in this their constitution walking cannot be accounted the true established Churches of the Apostolique institution but rather are yet â—emayning in the gulfe of Antichristianisme The second Argument from 2. Cor. 6.17 Revel 18.4 Act. 19.9 2.40.47 5.13 1. Timoth. 6.5 From these such like places of Scripture compared together truly expounded may be collected an argument framed after this manner True Churches of the Apostolique institution consisted of a people seperated from â—â—eleevers whether Iewes or pagans or other The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England consist not of such a Seperated people but are compounded of a mixt people which for the most part are as bad as Iewes or Pagans viz persons notoriously wicked Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the truly constituted Churches of the Apostolique institution Heer it wil nothing availe them to alledg as they are accustomed that they are neither Iewes nor Pagans For I have already proved that persons that submit to Antichrist his abhominations are in the Lords account equal to Pagans being called in the book of the Revelation Egiptians Sodomites Babylonians Gentils the Apostle willeth the Disciples to Seperate
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