Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 2

Arrow Against the Separationists · Discourse · Chapter 2

p. 44CHAP. II. Touching the Argument, of Separating from ſin onelyonly.

Hen. Ainſ.NOw therfore I come to my argument which was this.

That ſeparation which is onelyonly from ſyn and communion therwith, is of God, and is all good mens dutie. But our ſeparation onelyonly from ſyn and communion with ſyn, wherwith we were intangled in your mother Church. Therfore our ſeparation is of God, &c. The first propoſition confirmed by Exod. 20. Eph. 5.11. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. You except not againſt. The ſecond I proved by ſhewing the four chief heads of ſynns, for and from which we ſeparated: and referred you to the ſcriptures & reaſons in our publick writings, for further manifeſtation.

You anſwer: Firſt ſuppoſe we did juſtly in ſeparating from theſe four things, yet is not our minor proved. Your reaſon is, 1. We ſeparate from the Dutch and French Churches. 2. We ſeparate alſo from your congregation: & this ſeparation (you ſay) is not onelyonly from ſyn, & therfore not of God, &c. Herevpō you labour to binde me by the coards of mine own ſyllogiſme (as you ſpeak) to prove my Minor: and you vrge my promiſe, and preſse me, If I wil deale honeſtly & truely, or ſoundly and directly, &c. as if you thought the very naming of theſe Churches would make me afrayd. But the Lord is with vsus, and we will not fear what man can doe vntounto vsus.

Firſt, conſider I pray you, how ſoundly and directly yourſelf do anſwer vntounto thoſe 4. heads of tranſgreſsiō, which I named: whē you neyther ingenuouſly grant them, nor take vponupon you to convince them, but put a ſuppoſition onelyonly: that if any inconvenience folow, you may hereafter turne the tenour of your ſpeech, and ſay we did vnjuſtly in ſeparating. Thus you will walk at large, and I muſt be bound in coards: I must prove directly, you may anſwer indirectly. It was exſpected not onelyonly by me, but by ſome even of your owne flock, that you would try your strength to prove vsus ſchiſmatiks from the church of England; but p. 45loe, how you withdraw at the firſt. Wel, ſeing you ſay no more, we will take your ſuppoſition for a certaine trueth: and let him that readeth, judge in diſcretion, whether of vsus dealeth more ſoundly and directly.

Secondly, to inſnare our ſeparation in ſyn, you bring no one word of the Law of God, wherby ſyn is to be aaRō. 3.20knowen; but allege the congregations of men. Which may, I grant, be a ſtombling block to the weak: but cannot perſwade any wiſe conſcience. It hath been the Papiſts common practiſe, when ſcriptures faile them, to dazel mens eyes with names of Church, councils, fathers, &c. But I would not have you to learn their wayes. To the Law and to the Teſtimonie, ſayth the Lord: if they ſpeak not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in them, Eſai. 8.20.

Thirdly, you have no more reaſon, (if ſo much) to ſay that we have ſeparated from the Dutch Churches, then that they have ſeparated from vsus. For we being called of God, whiles we dwelt in England entred into covenant there, and became his Church and people: and ſo had equal right in Chriſt, his Goſpel and ordinances, with all other Churches in the world. For came the word of God to Dutch men onelyonly came it not to the Engliſh alſo? We being thus eſtabliſhed in Chriſt, bbCoūterp. p. 49. Anſwer to Th. VVhile. Pag. 25.acknowledged the reformed Churches, (vponupon the ſight of their Cōfeſſions,) to be true Churches, & our brethrē in the Lord: & to their Vniverſities we dedicate the Confeſsion of our faith. And how doe they accept of vsus? To let paſſe other things which I could mention, behold what your Diſciples have publiſhed in their foreſayd libell, pag. 21. thus.

The teſtimonie of the Dutch Church concerning the Browniſts. When as they ſent their meſſengers with ſome queſtions vntounto the Dutch Elderſhip, they received this anſwer from them: That they did not acknowledge their aſsemblie, to be an eccleſiaſtical aſſemblie, or a lawfull Church. And when M^r. Iohnſon and others of them, were inſtant to hear reaſons of this anſwer from them: it was further anſwered: They would doe it, if they ſaw it needfull, or if they found any thing that was worthy of anſwer.

Now let theſe things teſtifie before any equal judges, whether the p. 46ſeparation be moſt on vsus, or on them.

Fourthly, the inſtance of that one man that came vntounto vsus from the French Church, convinceth vsus no more of ſynfull ſeparation; then the Dutch Churches receiving ſundry of ſuch as had been our members, convinceth them.

Fiftly, the cauſe why M^r. Cluſe left the French Church, being their ſynns in their publik worſhip of God, & adminiſtration to the church; as praying out of humane preſcribed Leitourgies, and preaching from humane apocryphal Catechiſmes: Baptiſing ſuch as are not in the covenant of Chriſt, and the like; which are condemned by Exod. 20.4.5. Deut. 12.32. Eſa. 29.13 Mat. 15.9. Gen. 17. It followeth neceſſarily vponupon my former mayn argument (which you have not yet infringed) that he left them lawfully: and ſo as yet, you have proved no ſyn in our ſeparation.

Sixtly, there is in him and vsus no other blame to be found then in yow and yours: who profeſsing (in your laſt writing) to ſeparate from knowen evils: have gathered here an other Church, and doe receive ſuch as ſeparate from ſome evils in the Church of England. And why then condemne you vsus, for receiving him that ſeparated from knowen evils in the French Church?

Your ſecond exception is, that we ſeparate alſo from your congregation, and cenſure thoſe of our people that come vntounto you. I anſwer: firſt it is you that have made the ſeparation, by gathering a new Church apart from vsus, who were here a Church before you, as while are I ſhewed. Secondly, we have juſt cauſe to cenſure ſuch of ours as come vntounto you, both for their ſchiſme, in leaving the true Church wherof they were: and for their falling back into great evils, as the renouncing of their holy covenant and profeſsion of ſeparation which at their firſt entrance amongst vsus they made with vsus: they renounce it as moſt abominable, as the Libellers amongst you (which ſomtime in profeſsion were of vsus) have printed in their infamous book aforeſayd, p. 2. & 7. Vnleſſe therfore you can diſprove our Church, and ſeparation from the ſynns in the Church of England the cenſuring of them is juſt.

Your 3. exception is, that we ſeparate alſo from the private communion p. 47of the Godly in England. To convince vsus of ſyn herein, you bring no one word of God, but would preſse vsus with the writings of men. How vnworthy this is, of a man profeſsing to teach religion, let the godly judge. In ſted of proving this to be ſyn vponupon vsus, you would vrge me to anſwer that book written for private communion: thus you indevour to ſet vsus at variance amongst our ſelves, whiles you may look on for advantage. And why I pray you, might not I as well vrge you to anſwer the things written in that book againſt publick communion, which you mainteine? or to anſwer D. Bilſons book of perpetuall governement, bent directly againſt your preſbyteries and Church governement, which hath been many moe yeres in publick then this which you mention to me. Or M_r. Hookers 8. books of eccleſiaſtical politie, written to overthrow yours? Thoſe laſt books hauehave turned many from your ſide to the Prelate: and where there is one of vsus, there are a 1000. of you and moe, to make anſwer. As for me, if I would anſwer it, you and others take a courſe to hinder me, by ſuch private controverſies as you begin and proſequute with me. And having in hand another neceſſary work (as is partly knowen in publick) beſides my private writings to you and ſundry others, you yet would lode me with more: ſhewing your ſelf like an hard taſk-Maiſter, to lay ſo much work on me, and doe ſo litle your ſelf.

But what need you vrge this, ſeing it is not to the matter in hand. For your former writings to me, were about Church communion▪ mine argument is alſo concerning the ſame. Now to eaſe your ſelf, you come in with private communion: which the Author of the book you mention, plainly diſtinguiſheth from Church communion: which he diſproveth evidently in the ſame book, as you may ſee. And whereas you ſay I have affirmed, if private communion be granted, publick wil alſo folovv: you are miſtaken if you apply it to the Church of England: This I hold, that publick communion of ſuch perſons vvith vsus vvill folow: but not our publick communion vvith their Church where ſo many groſſe evils are practiſed. You inſult therfore in vaine, as if this (if it were granted) vvould raſe the principles of our ſeparation, and as if I therfore refuſed to deale therwith. It is not poſsible that our principles of ſeparation, vvhichwhich is from p. 48ſyn onelyonly, and communion therwith, as I have ſhewed you, ſhould ever be ſhaken, ſo long as Gods word endureth.

Now though I need ſay no more of this matter, ſeing you have ſayd nothing from the ſcriptures againſt vsus: yet I wil ſhew you what I judge of this doctrine. All private communion with the godly in England I deny not: ſuch as are come to that meaſure of grace, as that they are worthy in Chriſt, to be received into the true viſible Church, in that eſtate: with them I hold it lawful to have private communion, even before they be joyned to the Church. But ſuch as for their Antichriſtian eſtate and walking, are by the rules of Gods word, debarred from admiſsion into the Church of Chriſt til they repent & leave their ſyn: with them I hold it not lawfull to have private communion, though ſome good things appeare to be in them, which I wil labour to cheriſh. And this is that which I intend in my anſwer to M. Bernard, in that place of my Book which you cite, and I never held otherwiſe. If you can prove ſyn in this doctrine, I wil hear you, ſpeaking frō the word of God: other authoritie I refuſe to be preſſed with. And when you have proved vsus to ſyn herein, (if ever you be able:) then are you to begin a new with your Church eſtate, which will not at all be juſtified hereby.

Anſwer.

Io. Pa.THeſe things being thus diſpatched, you com now to your argument & repeat it. I denyed your minor, which was, that you ſeparated from ſin onelyonly, &c. I ſhewed the weaknes of your profe of it frō the inſufficiēt enumeratiō of thoſe things that you profeſſed to ſeparate frō: My firſt exception was, that as you ſeparated from the Dutch & French Churches ſo from ours alſo: mētioning your ſeparation frō the Dutch & French onelyonly to illuſtrate your fact & your dealing with ours: This exception you devide into two, & reply many things with litle reaſon: And firſt, you pray me to cōſider how ſoundly & directly I anſwer vntounto thoſe 4. heads of tranſgreſsion, which you named: when I neither ingenuouſly grant thē, nor take vpō me to convince them, &c. Herevnto I anſwer.

Firſt, my anſwer vntounto your argument is ſound and direct though I meddle not with thoſe 4. tranſgreſſions at all: It is p. 49enough to ſhew the falſhood of any argument, if we ſhew any part of the firſt or ſecond propoſition to be falſe: and it is in the anſwerers choyſe to deny what he will: But you, as if you regarded not the lawes of learning and the rules of right reaſoning, do grudge this liberty vntounto me and expoſtulate with me as if the opponent might preſcribe the anſwerer what to grant and what to deny. Doth not your argument of ſeparating from ſin onelyonly fall manifeſtly vntounto the ground, and the honour of it ly in the duſt, when I give you ſome inſtances wherein you cannot prove that you ſeparate from ſin onelyonly? why do you then trifle about ſurmiſes of I know not what inconveniences? Oh, but you complaine, that I will walk at liberty and you muſt be boūd in cords: you muſt prove directly, & I may anſwer indirectly. But you are herein a very vnjuſt murmurer: & you are herein like vntounto a Nigardly perſon who deſiring to ſeeme liberall makes proffer of ſome kindenes, where he thinkes it wil not be accepted: but ſeeing it accepted contrary to his expectation, then he repents and frets in himſelf and grumbles againſt the perſon that hath accepted his offer: did not you offer me to reaſon with me of aaFol. 2. awhat poynt or poynts I would? vvhy do you now grudge to performe it? have not you framed and faſhioned your argument your ſelf? why do you with ſuch an ill-wil proſequute it in order? If it be a paine vntounto you that you are bound: it is but in the cords of your owne offer and of your owne argument: you muſt blame your ſelf for it. If I walk at liberty it is but in the plaine pathway of direct reaſoning: let men of learning judge. And why do you trifle about the expectation of it may be two or three of our people (which yet I know not of) that ſuppoſed the queſtion betwixt vsus was otherwiſe then it is; as if I ſhould alter the ſtate of the queſtion layd downe betwixt vsus, vponupon ſuch a pretence? How vnjuſtly do you complaine that I with draw at the firſt? I withdraw not one inch from the queſtion layd downe plainely of purpoſe by my ſelf to avoyd ſuch cavils as theſe: But loe, it is you which ſpeaking of our bbPag. 35.entring into liſts, which were deſcribed by me & approved by your p. 50ſelf do yet at the very firſt encounter ſtart aſide from theſe liſts or bounds into an other field, and at one ſkip leap out of Germany into England.

Secondly, to ſalve or to mitigate a litle the paine of your diſcontentment, if it may be, I doe plainely ſignify vntounto you that my reſolution and purpoſe is (the Lord aſſiſting me with life & ſtrength) to deale with you about your ſeparation from the Church of England, and to manifeſt your errour and ſchiſme therein alſo, vvhen once this controverſy about our particular congregation ſhalbe finiſhed and ſufficiently diſcuſſed. In the meane time I think to hold vntounto this, being ſo fit a preparation vntounto the other.

In the next place you reply further, that to enſnare your ſeparation in ſin, I bring no one word of the Law of God, whereby ſin is to be knowne, but alledge the congregations of men. That this may be a ſtumbling block to the weak, &c. a common practiſe of the Papiſts to dazel mens eyes, &c. To the law and to the teſtimony, &c. I anſwer.

Firſt, it is a great wrong and an vrter perverting of my anſwer to ſay I alledge the congregations of men to enſnare you in ſin, as though I drew an argument from the authority of men to convince your errour. I make no argument there at all, but give anſwer vntounto you, and there againe onelyonly in a matter of fact I declare the maner of your ſeparation to be otherwiſe then you pretended in ſpeaking of your ſeparation from thoſe 4. heads of tranſgreſſion: there I ſhew that your ſeparation is not onelyonly from thoſe 4. things, but alſo that as you ſeparate from the Dutch and French, ſo do you from ours, thereby to give you occaſion to make good your argument for the reiecting of our congregation, and ſo to come vntounto the particulars concerning the ſame, in defence whereof I hope to manifeſt how much you have abuſed the ſcriptures.

Secondly, the blame vvhichwhich you impute vntounto me for the allegation of humane teſtimonies to dazel the eyes of men, &c. is juſtly to be returned vponupon your owne head, who do ſo often cite them and call for them to be your witneſſes, even all ſortsp. 51of them, heathniſh, Popiſh, Iewiſh Authors, yea the very witches themſelves and the Spirits of divination. For example

1. For the allegations of heathens, ſee how needleſly you alledge them; when you ſhew vntounto M_r. Iohnſon the diſproportion betwixt the common wealth and miniſters in the church, you content not yourſelf with the ſcriptures, but you ccAnimad. verſ. p. 15.call for the teſtimony of Cato to reprove him. VVhen you tell him of aequivocating, and ſhew it to be a common practiſe of ſuch as would deceive, you ddIbid. pag. 35.call for the vvitneſſe of Ariſtotle againſt him, &c.

For allegation of Popiſh witneſſes, you produce many of them in this writing, as Pope Sylveſter, Helmoldus, Geroldus & Vnwannus, & other fabulous writers to reprove our opinion and practiſe; you that ſo litle regard eeRev. 14.1.2.Rev 14:1Rev 14:2the harpers of mount Sion, the harmonious voyce of the reformed Churches that witneſs againſt you, do not yet refuſe to alledge & bring againſt vsus thoſe ffRev. 16.13.Rev 16:13croaking frogs, and vncleane Spirits that come out of the mouth of the beaſt.

3. For Iewiſh writers, you produce them ſo often, both ggAnimadverſ. p. 16. 17. &c.againſt M^r. Iohnſon and alſo in this your writing, that all men may ſee, you do not onelyonly go to the law and to the teſtimony, but to the Talmud & to the Rabbines, to the Infidel Iewes: though the hh1. Theſ. 2 16.1 Thess 2:16curſe of God be come vponupon them to the full, their iiRom. 11.10.Rom 11:10eyes being blinded, the kkMat. 21.43.Matt 21:43Kingdome of God taken from them, and they llMat. 8.12.Matt 8:12caſt into vtter darknes, yet would you light our candle at them that ſit in the ſhadow of death: yea you follow and imitate the vaineſt ſort of them, the Cabaliſts in their curious ſpeculations as in your tranſlation of the Pſalmes, where you ſhew that Iſrael is a name of power and principalitie, you note further that mmAnnotations on Pſ. 14.7.Ps 14:7it may alſo be obſerved, how in this word ISRAEL are conteyned the firſt letters of the names of Abraham and of Sarah his wife; of Iſaak and Rebekah his wife: of Iaakob and of both his Wives Leah and Rachel, &c. If this were a lawfull or tolerable obſervation, you might as well for the countēancing of your ſchiſme, make the like obſervation vponupon the name of Separation, for in thisp. 52word, SEPARATION are alſo conteyned the firſt letters of the names of Abraham and of Sarah his VVife: of Iſaak & Rebekah his vvife: of Iaakob and of Rachel his wife: you might likewiſe obſerve how in this word SEPARATION are alſo conteyned the initiall or firſt letters of the names of thoſe nnAct. 5.6.Acts 5:67. Saints Stephen, Philip, Prochorns, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, that had the honour to be the firſt Deacons of the new planted Chriſtian Church in Ieruſalem: yea you might yet further obſerve that not onelyonly the firſt letters of the names of thoſe 3. ancient patriarkes Abraham, Iſaak and Iaakob, but alſo the firſt letters of the names of the 4. later patriarkes of new Churches M^r. Iohnſon, M^r. Smith, M^r. Ainſworth, Mr. Robinſon are in like maner conteyned in this word SEPARATION, with many other myſteries that by ſuch kinde of collections might be drawne from the ſame. But ooIer. 23.28.Jer 23:28what is the chaffe to the wheate, ſaith the Lord? what is pp1 Cor. 3.12.1 Cor 3:12hay and ſtubble of ſuch obſervations to the Gold, Silver and precious ſtones of faithfull doctrine? And what have the ſincere miniſters of Chriſt to do with ſuch vnſound, Iewiſh and Cabaliſtical obſervations & annotations?

4. For your allegation of the teſtimony of witches or Spirits of divination, your fault herein alſo appeares to be very great. 1. In that you qqCoūterp. Pag 47. Animad. verſ. p. 95.alledge the Oracles of the Sibylles, women poſſeſſed and inſpired by the Devil: herein you offend againſt your owne rrEſa. 8.20Isa 8:20allegation, to the law and to the teſtimony; and conſider the ſſIbid. 19.verſe going before in the ſame chapter: Should not a people enquire at their God, ſhould they go from the living to the dead? A man might as well and as lawfully tt2 Kin. 1.2.3 4-162 Kgs 1:22 Kgs 1:3with Ahaziah that wicked King of Iſrael have ſent to enquire at the Oracle of Baalzebub the God of Ekron, as have gone to the orackle of Baalah. Sibylla: whoſe teſtimony you bring vntounto vsus. Our Saviour in the dayes of his fleſh on earth uuLuk 4.35 41.Luke 4:35rebuked the wicked Spirits for their teſtimony of him, & cōmanded them to hold their peace: Paul alſo was xxAct. 16.17.18.Acts 16:17Acts 16:18greeved at the teſtimony of the mayd that had the Spirit of divination: but you on the contrary require thep. 53Spirit of divination to ſpeak vntounto vsus, and call vntounto Sibyll that ſhe may cry after vsus with her teſtimony. 2. This allegation is ſo much the more vile, then the teſtimony of many other witches that wicked men ſeek vntounto, in reſpect of the moſt filthy and abhominable maner whereby this wretched wight did both receive and vtter againe the inſpiration of the vncleane Spirit, namely not by her mouth onelyonly, but her belly being ſwollen, and ſhe ſitting vponupon the ſacred ſtoole or Tripos, then came the ſtinking Oracle from vnderunder or out of the ſtoole below. This kinde of impure divination is noted both in the yyOb, & Oboth. Lev. 19.31 & 20.27.Lev 19:31Lev 20:27title which the ſcripture gives, vntounto theſe miſcreants, which ſignifyeth a bottle or bladder in reſpect of that inſpiratiō which makes their bellies as a blowne bladder: & by the zzEngaſtrimuthoi. ventriloqui. The 70 intepreters in Levit. 19.31, &c. Bar-ſchuma, the ſon of Swelling The Syriac tranſlat. in Act. 13.6. See Iunius there, & Anal. on Deut. 18.11.Lev 19:31Acts 13:6Deut 18:11titles which other writers give them to ſignify their ſpeaking out of their bellies: And this monſtrous impurity is more largely deſcribed by ſundry other witneſſes and by ſome that are printed togather with that booke, from whence you alledge thoſe oracles of Sibylla. VVherfore then ſhould ſuch vncleane ſtuffe be brought vntounto Chriſtian eares: and why do you Mr. Ainſworth adorne your writings with ſuch excrements of vncleane and wicked Spirits? 3. It is ſin to go vntounto vvitches for any Silver or cattel or ſuch like earthly goods when they are loſt or ſtollen, but to go vntounto a Spirit of divination to enquire for the truth of Religion when it is hidden, loſt or obſcured by the adverſaries thereof, who do by their controverſies as it were ſteale the ſame: this is yet a greater iniquitie, this is to make the father of lyes a guide vntounto the truth, and to ſet Satan in Gods ſeate. 4. Many in their neceſſities, dangers and temptations go vntounto vviſardes: for as you tell M^r. Iohnſon when he alledgeth the opinion of M^r. Iunius for his cauſe: aaAnimad. verſ. p. 98.What will not men do for help in time of need? Yet are not ſuch excuſed thereby: for God is bbGen. 17.1.Gen 17:1al ſufficient vntounto his people. But how much more are they to blame that needleſly for wantonnes, pleaſure or vaine oſtentation do run vntounto them, as you do vntounto Sibylla? what neededp. 54you to run to the Spirit of divination to prove ccAnimad. verſ. p. 95.Antichriſte to be Belial, as though the ſcriptures did not ſhew it ſufficiently? How frivolous and idle à flouriſh do you make with the teſtimony of Sibylla in the ddCounterpoy. p. 47.other place to give ſome colour vntounto ſuch an expoſition of ſcripture, as even your ſelf in the next page do reiect as vncertaine if not falſe? How juſt is the eeRefutatiō of Giff. pag. 120.reproofe of H. Barow vponupon you, when he inveigheth againſt thoſe that fetch the ornaments of their ſtile and of their bookes from profane Writers though it were but to exemplify and illustrate that which the ſayd? what would he have ſayd think you, if he had ſeene you paint and varniſh the margent of your bookes vvith ſuch allegations as theſe? 5. Thoſe vvritings, from whence you alledge the teſtimonies of Sibylla are even by the publiſher of that book himſelf in his preface manifeſted to be forged and counterfait things for the moſt part: Now it is ſin to ly of the Divel, why do you then alledge in the name of Sibylla, you know not what? How greedy are you of vaine allegations, that thus lick vp the crummes and fragments of Sibyll, & graſp after the ſhadow of a ſorcereſſe? Though ſome ancient writers have heretofore vſed the teſtimony of the Sibyls, againſt the pagans that worſhipped the divel, to convince them by their owne oracles, which then were not ſo counterfait and forged as now they are, yet have not you the like excuſe, that want the like occaſion for the vſe of them. Theſe things I have thought good to note the more largely (though many other evils might further be obſerved in theſe your allegations) becauſe your maner ſtill is through out your writings to vpbrayd vsus ſo much with that which your ſelf are more guilty of.

In the third place, you reply that we have no more reaſon (if ſo much to ſay that you have ſeparated from the Dutch Churches, then that they have ſeparated from you, &c. I anſwer.

1. This doth not diminiſh the truth of my former anſwer; if you have ſeparated from the Dutch, then have you not ſeparated onelyonly from thoſe 4. heads, mentioned in your argument.

p. 552. Neither doth this diminiſh your ſin, but encreaſe the ſame: for if the Dutch have alſo ſeparated from you, this might be an occaſion of repentance vntounto you by making you to conſider your wayes more ſeriouſly, and ſo to finde out your ſcandal condemned by the word of God. And the Papiſts, Arians and Anabaptiſts may ſay as wel as you, that the Dutch Churches have ſeparated from them as well as they have ſeparated from the Dutch. And this ſerves for a further witneſſe againſt them.

3. If the word of God came not to Dutch men onelyonly, as you ſay: then are you for this cheefly to be humbled that have made à ſeparation contrary to that word that came vntounto you alſo. And though you acknowledged the Reformed Churches to be true Churches and did dedicate your Confeſſion vntounto their vniverſities, yet when they ſaw your ſchiſme publiſhed therein, namely that ffConfeſſ. Art. 32.all that wilbe ſaved are bound by Gods Commandement, with ſpeed to come forth of their Antichriſtian eſtate in the Church of England, &c. VVhereby you condemned all the godly therein as being in a damnable eſtate, & excluded from ſalvation in that eſtate: when they ſaw many of your exceptiōs againſt the Church of England to be ſuch as did alſo neceſſarily lead vntounto ſeparation from them, as well as from England, had they not reaſon to avoyd and beware of the new Diſciples of ſuch a ſeparation, as being an vnlawfull aſſemblie eſtabliſhed in Schiſme and not in Chriſte.

4. For that which you alledge concerning their anſwering of your reaſons: namely, that they would do it, if they ſaw it needfull, or if they found any thing that was worthy of anſwer. Might they not have their reaſons ſo to anſwer? did they not diſcerne your contentious diſpoſition in other dealings before, as well as afterward, when the deputies both of Dutch and French churches dealing with your Elderſhip about the cauſe of M^r. Iohn Iohnſon to have ſtayd your paſtour from the excommunication of his Father if it might have bene, do yet ggProfane Schiſme of Bro. p. 60.teſtify that they could not get a hhCategoricum teſpōſum.plaine or direct anſwer from you? And if therep. 56were nothing els, had they not ſome reaſon to ceaſſe reaſoning with them that would not anſwer plainely and directly?

Laſtly, as M^r. Iohnſon himſelf writes that iiPreface to D. B. ſect. 6. Before anſwer to M^r. Iacob.experience the miſtreſse of fooles teacheth many things, ſo might the Dutch Elderſhip conſider that the ſame ſchoole-miſtreſſe might teach you that, which you would not learne of others; as they may alſo ſee it come to paſſe in M^r. Iohnſon and the greateſt part of your congregation who have now of themſelves let fal many of thoſe things for which they ſtood ſo eagerly againſt the Dutch heretofore.

Your fourth reply is, that the inſtance of that one man that came vntounto you from the French Church, convinceth you no more of ſinfull Separation; then the Dutch Churches receyving ſundry of ſuch as had bene your members convinceth them. I anſwer, this inſtance was not alledged as an argument to convince the vnlawfulnes and ſin of your ſeparation, but as an anſwer for matter of fact vntounto your argument, to illuſtrate your fact in ſeparating from our congregation as you do from the French: & thus it ſhewes as much as it was brought for: namely, that you do not ſeparate onelyonly from the 4. things mentioned by you.

In your fift reply, you tel vsus 3 of the cauſes for which M^r. Cluſe your Elder left the French Church, viz. their vſe of humane leitourgies, Cathechiſme, & baptiſing ſuch as are not in the covenant of Christe, &c. That for theſe ſins according to your maine argument he left them lawfully, &c. I anſwer.

1. This ſtory of your Elders ſeparation is imperfectly ſet downe: In the examination of his fact, it were expedient the Reader ſhould know the circumſtances thereof, & how it began in a moſt pregnant and remarkable diſcontment how it was concluded with ſhameful & falſe boaſting: of theſe things I have ample teſtimonie from M^r. La vigne the ancient & reverend paſtour of that French Church delivered vntounto me in the preſence of their Elderſhip which in due time is further to be manifeſted.

2. For the cauſes of his ſeparation, he alledged alſo the ſetp. 57maintenance of their miniſters: their meeting in Idol-temples▪ their ſuffring of the innocent partie to forgive the offendant that had committed adultery, and to live togather againe: their maner of exerciſing their diſcipline, &c. Touching Idol-tēples, he may learne by this writing in defence of our particular congregation that he had no cauſe to ſeparate vponupon ſuch a pretēce: and as for the reſt of the poynts ſuppoſe they were all ſins as you would have them: yet doth it not follow according to your maine or meane argument, that therfore he ſhould leave their Church: for he did not according to your argument ſeparate from ſin onelyonly, but from all that was good amongſt them? and left their whole communion. That being true which followeth in the defence of our Church, Decluſe may hereby perceive that he hath cauſe to humble himſelf for his offence given vntounto the French.

Laſtly, you reply, that there is in him & you, no other blame to be found then in me and ours, who profeſſe to ſeparate from knowne evilles, &c. I anſwer, that there be two maine differences betwixt vsus, which do make our eſtates to differ as far as Eaſt is from the VVeſt: 1, he and you in juſtifying of him, will have ſuch things to be knowne evilles, as are not evill at all: to wit, ſet maintenance of miniſters: vſe of our temples: the innocent perſons reteyning of the repentant adulterer, &c. Theſe we maintaine to be lawfull. 2. he & you in juſtifying of him, for pretended corruptions do vtterly renounce communion, & quite leave a true Church as de hath done: but we on the contrary do not leave communion of true Churches for corruptions & ſins, according to his example, but onelyonly abſtaine from the practiſe of evil in our owne perſons, and witneſſe againſt it in others, ſtill holding communion with the Churches of Chriſte.

VntoUnto my ſecond exception (as you call it; though it be my firſt anſwer onelyonly illuſtrated with your ſeparation from the French Church mentioned before) you reply two things. 1. You ſay, it is we that have made the ſeparation by gathering a p. 58new Church apart from you, who were here a Church before vsus. I anſwer, though it be true that we renounce your ſchiſme & communion, yet doth not our gathering of a new Church apart from you, prove the ſame: for it may yet come to paſſe that there ſhalbe an other new Engliſh Church in this citie gathered apart from vsus, and yet no ſeparation, but a loving communion occaſionally miainteyned betwixt vsus, though we be here a church before them By ſuch a reaſon as this you might prove that M^r. Robinſon and his company ſeparated from you at his firſt comming into this land, becauſe they gathered a new church apart from you in the ſame citie, you being here a Church before them. 2. you ſay, you have juſt cauſe to cenſure ſuch of yours as come vntounto vsus both for their ſchiſme in leaving you: & for their falling into great evilles, as the renouncing of their holy covenant and profeſsion of ſeparation, &c. I anſwer, 1. You cenſure your people ſometimes not onelyonly for ſeparating from you: and for renouncing their covenant with you, but even for hearing one Sermon with vsus, and cutt them off if they make not publique repentance: yea though they heare vsus at ſuch a time when you have no exerciſe: And this is a full proofe of that poynt wherevnto I brought it, namely to ſhew the lamenes of your argument, in that you did not ſeparate onelyonly from thoſe 4. things noted by you: but this fault you will not ſee nor acknowledge, though it be moſt palpable. 2. That your people ought to renounce their covenant made among you with profeſſion of ſeparation from the Church of England, it is already ſhewed in thoſe treatiſes which I have nominated vntounto you, which if they were duely weighed, the abhomination of your ſchiſme might well be diſcerned notwithſtanding all the libelles which you have ſpread abroad againſt the Church of God.

To my third exception, as you reckon it, touching your ſeparation from the private communion of the godly in England, you reply many things in a heape: that to convince you of ſin, I bring no one word of God, but would preſſe you with the writings p. 59of men, &c. Herevnto I anſwer.

Firſt, touching your miſreckoning: you deale with me as the Church of Rome in their Catechiſmes doth with the decalogue or 10, Commandements: when they leave out the ſecond commandement which is againſt their Idolatry, yet to keep the number of ten, they divide the laſt commandement & make two of it: ſo when I gave you 3. anſwers to your argument, you leave out the laſt and omit it altogather, and yet keep the number by dividing the firſt and making two of it.

Secondly, when I ſent you here to the writings of M^r. Robinſon refuting your private ſchiſme, do not I ſend you to the word of God and ſcriptures which he hath alledged, as is largely to be aaRelig. Com. from p. 7. to 17.ſeene? How often do you your ſelf in your bookes ſend vsus vntounto the writings of H. Barow, and Mr. Iohnſon, vpbrayding vsus for not anſwering of them? yea and furthet to ſhew your blinde partialitie in this complaint, do not you your ſelf in your former bbPag. 4.writing ſend me vntounto M_r. Robinſons booke to anſwer it: and why may not I as wel ſend you to the very ſame Author? Nay, not onelyonly ſo, but you ſend me vntounto ſuch a booke of M^r. Robinſon as himſelf doth begin to revoke publiquely as being vnſound in divers thinges, whereas I refer you vntounto a later booke of his, made with riper deliberation, and in no part that I heare of, publiquely revoked. His booke which you ſend me vntounto, being his Iuſtification of ſeparation, is ſick of King ccChro. 21.15.18.19.Iehorams incurable diſeaſe, the guttes of it fall out day by day, yea he openly pluckes out ſome of the bowelles thereof with his owne hands: vntounto this rotten book you refer me, & yet blame me that refer you vntounto that which is more ſound. VVhat equity or honeſty is there, in this dealing?

Thirdly, for the ſetting of you at variance, it is your ſelves that have done it, yea the Lord in his judgement hath done it: I onelyonly wiſh that you would not ſmother the matter, but ſearch conſcionably for the truth: and ſo I doubt not but it would redound to the advantage of the truth, and of many poore ſoules inſnared in your errour, yea and to your owne advantagep. 60at the laſt, by being made an occaſion to finde out the evill of your ſchiſme.

Fourthly, for your now vrging of me to anſwer the things that concerne publique communion in this foreſayd book, do you not conſider that vponupon the comming forth of this book, there was preſently publiſhed a Manuduction for M^r. Robinſon to lead him vntounto publique communion, and this by the ſame perſon that had convinced his private ſeparation to be vnlawfull? Thoſe that do juſtly weigh thoſe Manuductions may thereby diſcerne his doctrine about publique communion layd downe in that booke, to be already refuted.

Fiftly, for your vrging of me to anſwer D. Bilſons and M_r. Hookers bookes, as wel as I vrge you to anſwer M^r. Robinſon: I anſwer, there is not the like reaſon. 1. There is no miniſter or learned man to anſwer M^r. Robinſon but onelyonly you, M_r. Iohnſon being againſt you alſo in this and no proteſtant miniſter in the world that holds ſuch an vnchriſtian errour againſt private communion with the godly beſides your ſelf that I can heare of: whereas for the anſwer of D.B. and M^r. H. there are many more fit and meet then I am. 2. I were never provoked to anſwer theſe men, as you have bene openly in your owne congregation by your owne people deſired and vrged to anſwer Mr. Robinſon. 3. The ſubſtance of that which is in thoſe two mens bookes hath bene anſwered already in many writings: the ſubſtance of that which M_r. Robinſon hath printed againſt your private Schiſme, hath not bene refuted by any that I ever heard of.

Sixtly, to that you ſay, there be for on of you, a 1000. of vsus & moe, to make anſwer, &c. I anſwer, 1. Though vve be moe then you, yet ſeing you be ſuch men of might, and we but graſhoppers in your ſight: ſeing your people do ſo often take into their mouthes that ſaying of Moſes and apply it to themſelves againſt vsus: Deut. 32.30.Deut 32:30one ſhall chaſe a thouſand, and two put ten thouſand to flight: according to this account your excellency is equivalent vntounto our multitude. 2. If we be a 1000. p. 61to one of you, yet it appeares that one of you have heretofore bene as ready to contend for the ſeparation, as a 1000. of vsus have bene to ſtrive againſt it: one of you hath ſtird vp as much contention as a 1000. of vsus. Heretofore when M^r. B. wrote a book againſt your ſchiſme, ech of you ſtrove to be on his back. M_r. Smith & M_r. Robinſon pleaded that they had ſpeciall right in the quarrel, and yet you prevented them both and ruſhed into the battel before them: Though then you three came againſt one, yet now when 3. of you are by name called vponupon to defend the vnreaſonablenes of your ſeparation, in the aaIn the preface:book ſo entitled: there is not one of you appeares: heretofore you were wont to ſnatch vp private letters, broken notes of Sermons and other writings & made ſeveral bookes againſt them, ſtill complayning (as even in your former writing) that you were not anſwered: why do you now begin to make a contrary complaint againſt me? It is your ſelf thay lay lode vponupon your owne broad ſhoulders, by ſetting your hand with bbGen. 16.12.Gen 16:12Iſmael againſt every man in every Church of Chriſte.

Seventhly, though my writings to you were about Church communion, and your argument alſo concerne the ſame, yet if in this your argument you bring ſuch a propoſition, the falſhood whereof may be manifeſted by conſideration of your private communion, is there not juſt occaſion to note the ſame? And howſoever you intended your ſpeech touching the inference of publique communion from private, (if it were ſo as you now interpret your ſelf) the diſcuſſing thereof betwixt you would vndoubtedly help to pluck downe the tower of your ſeparation. As for your preſumptuous affirmation, that it is not poſſible that the principles of your ſeparation which is from ſin onelyonly and communion therewith ſhould ever be ſhaken, ſo long as Gods word endureth, it is but a puffe of the fleſh: and I would counſell you to beware of ſuch vaine confidence, which might moove the Lord to ccIam. 4.6.Jas 4:6ſmite you with hardnes of heart: yea ſuch preſumption is not onelyonly a mooving cauſe, but alſo a meanes whereby that judgement of obduration is executed: p. 62for many times when corrupt fleſh hath ſpoken or written vainely & cōfidently, there is a vayle of preiudice & frowardnes ſpread over the heart thereby: a greater vnwillingnes to retract errour is wrought in the heart thereby, & mē come to ſay as Pilate did in an other caſe, ddIoh. 19.22.John 19:22That which I have written, I have written. The word of God is infallible & endureth for ever, but your knowledge of that word is fallible: Thoſe two may not be compared togather: Your ſeparation is built vponupon the miſvnderſtanding of that word. VVhether you erre & pervert the word of God in making that to be ſin which is not: and in making that to be ſeparation from ſin onelyonly, which is alſo ſeparation from good things, we are to conſider by the examination of the particulars following for which you ſeparate from vsus.

Laſtly, when you profeſs to ſhew vsus your judgement touching communion with the godly in England, you do wrap vp the matter ſo, that ſimple men may eaſily miſtake you and be deceyved by you: you tell vsus that you hold private communion with ſuch as are come to that meaſure of grace, as that they are worthy in Chriſte, to be receyved into the true viſible Church: but who be they, M^r. Ainſworth? is there any one perſon, man, vvoman, or Child, high or low, that is a member of the Church of England, and vſes to heare the Sermons of the ſincereſt Miniſter of that Church whoſoever, whom you judge to be worthy in Chriſte to be receyved into the true viſible Church? name any one if you can: Nay I know you can not according to your profeſſion name one; for according to the whole tenour of your vvritings, they are all and every one of them Antichriſtians, yea groſſe Idolatours, carying the marke of the beaſt, and therfore all of them by you debarred from the Church of Chriſte, vntill they renounce that Church and every Miniſter thereof, ſeparating as you have done. But yet you ſay, you will labour to cheriſh the good things that appeare to be in them: Now vvhat is your cheriſhing of them? you allow them not to heare the faithfulleſt Miniſter of the Land, which might cheriſh them: your ſelf deny all religious communion vntounto them p. 63even in private: you pronounce them all to be the Children of wrath and of the curſe: and teach throughout your vvritings that there is no promiſe of Chriſte in his Goſpell, no hope of ſalvation that belongs vntounto them in this their eſtate: This is your cheriſhing of them? This your private ſchiſme is confuted by M_r. Robinſon: he preſſeth you vvith the vvord of God, vvith the ſcriptures and vvith divine authoritie, though you vvould faine have the reader to imagine othervviſe, by calling for the vvord of God, &c. Vntill you have anſwered the ſcriptures and the reaſons alledged by him, it is needleſſe for me to bring any more. In the meane time I wil endevour to maintaine our Church-eſtate againſt you.