Justification of Separation from the Church of England, Treatise · Section 10 – Section 5
The noveltie thereof differing from all the best reformed Churches … …. Likelyhood.Christendome.
It is no noveltie to hear men plead custome, when they wantAnsw…r. truth. So the heathen Phylosophers reproched Paul as †Act. 17. 19.a bringer of new doctrine: so do the Papists discountenance the doctrine and profession of the Church of England, yea even at this day, very many of the people in the Land, vse to call Popery the old law, & the profession there made, the new law.
But we for our parts, as we do beleeve by the word of God, that the things we teach are not new, but old truthes renued: so are we no lesse fully perswaded, that the Church constitution in which we are set, is cast in the Apostolicall and primitive mould, and not one day nor hower yonger in the nature and forme of it, then the first Church of the new Testament. And whether a people all of them separated, & sanctified (so farr as men by their fruits can, or ought to judge) or a mingled generation of the seed of the womā and seed of the serpent be more ancient; the government of sundry Elders or Bishops with joynt authority over one Church, or of one Nationall, Provincial, or Diocesan Bishop over many hundred or thousand Churches; the spirituall prayers conceived in the heart of the Ministers according to the present occasions, or necessityes of the Church, or the English service book; the simple administration of the Sacraments, according to the words of institution, or pompous and carnall complements of cap, coap, surplice, crosse, godfathers, kneeling and the like mingled withall; I do even refer it to the report of Mr B. owne conscience, be it never so partiall.
Now for the differences betwixt the best reformed Churches (as Mr B. calls them, granting thereby his owne to be the worst) and vsus, they ar extant in print, being few in number, & those none of the greatest weight. But what a volume would these differences make betwixt those reformed Churches, and the vnreformed Churches of England, if they were exactly set downe. And yet for the corruptions reproved by vsus in the reformed Church where we live, I do vnderstand by them of good knowledge, and sincerity, that the most or greatest of them are rather in the exequution then in the constitution of the Church.
Our differences from the reformed Churches, Mr B. aggravates by two reasons. 1. The first is our separation from them, 2. the 2. certeyne termes of disgrace vttered by Mr Barrow & Mr Greenwood agaynst the Eldership: which Mr Bernard will have vsus disclayme.
For the first, it is not truely affirmed that we separate from them. What our judgment is of them, our confessions of fayth and other wrytings do testify; and for our practise, as we cannot possibly ioyn vntounto them, would we never so fayne, being vtterly ignorant of their language; so neither do wee separate from them, save in such particulars as we esteeme evill; which we also shall endeavour to manifest vntounto them so to be, as occasion and meanes shalbe offered.
And secondly, for the taxations layd by Mr B. and Mr G. vponupon the Eldership, or other practise in the reformed Churches, wherein they were any way excessive we both have disclaimed, & alwayes are and shalbe ready to disclayme the same. OnelyOnly I entreat the godly reader to cōsider, that those things were not spoken by them otherwise, then in respect of those corruptions in the Eldership & els where, which they deemed Antichristian, and evill. Of which respective phrase of speach more hereafter.
Lastly if it be likely that our way is not good for the difference it hath from the reformed Churches, and that th… greatne… of the difference appeares by the hard termes given by some of vsus agaynst the government there vsus…d, th…n sur…ly i… is much moreAgainst Scotizing & Genevating Ministers. likely, that the way of the vnreformed Church of England is not good, which differeth far more frō the reformed Chu…ches: which difference appeares not onelyonly in most reprochfull termes vsed by the Praelates and their adhaerents against the seekers of reformation comparing them to all vile haeretiques, and seditious persons,O. O. his picture of a Puritan. but in cruell persequutions raysed agaynst them, and greater then against Papists or Atheists.
The second marke by which Mr B. guesseth our way not good is, for that it agreeth so much with the antient schismatiques condemned 2 Likelyhood.in former ages by holy and learned men, Luciferians, Donatists, Novattans and Audians.
Can our way both be a novelty & new devise, and yet agree soAnsw. well with the antient schismatiques condemned in former ages? Contradictions cannot be both true, but may both be false, as these are.
The partyes to whome Mr B. likeneth vsus were condemned not onelyonly for schisme but for heresy also, as appeares in Epiphanius, Austine, Eusebius and others. And as we have nothing, no not in s…ew like vntounto some of them, nor in truth vntounto any of them in the things blame worthy in them, so if Mr B. were put to iustify by the word of God the condemnation of some of them, it would put him to more trouble then he is aware of.
The Audians dissented from the Nicene Councell about theyr Easter tyme. The Luciferians held the soule of man to be ex traduce, and were therefore accounted Haeretiques, as indeed it was too vsuall a thing in those dayes to reiect men for haeretiques vponupon too light causes.
And for the Donatists vntounto whom Mr Gifford & others would so fayn fashion vsus, Mr B. and all others may see the dissimilitude betwixt them & vsus in the refutation of that supposed consimilitude.3. Likelyhood.
A third evill for which Mr B. would bring our cause into suspition is.
The matter of defending our opinions, and proving our assertions by Mr B.strange and forced expositions of scriptures.
Where he also notes in the margent that, the truth needs no such ill means to mainteyne it.Answ.
What the means are by which the Prelacy against which we witnes is mainteyned, all men know. The flattering of superiours, the oppressing of inferiours, the scoffing, reviling, imprisoning, & persequuting vntounto banishment and death of such as oppose it, are the weapōs of the Prelates warfare, by which they defend their tottering Babel. And were it not for the arm of …lesh by which they hold, and to which they trust, they and their pomp would vanish away like smoke before the wynde, so little weight have they or theyrs in the consciences of any.
But let us see wherin we mislead the reader by deceiptful allegations of scriptures.
1. In quoting scriptures by the way that is for things cōming in upon occasion, Mr B.but nothing to the mayne poynt, &c.Answ.
And wherefore is this deceiptfull dealing thus to alleadge the scriptures? Because the simple reader is hereby made beleve, that all is spokē for the question controverted.
He is simple & careles also that wil not search the scriptures before he beleve that they ar brought to prove, if he any way suspect it, which who so doth can not be deceived, as is here insinuated.
It were to be wished we both †Isa. 19. 18.spake and wrote the language of Canaan and none other, and not onelyonly to vse, but even to note the scripture phrase soberly may be to the information and edification of the reader.
2. By vrging commandements, admonitio…s, exhortations, dehortations, Mr B.reprehensions, and godly examples to prove a falsity.
What is falsity but that which is contrary to truth? and so *Ioh. 17. 17theAnsw. word of God being truth, whatsoever is contrary vntounto any part of it whither commaundement, admonition, exhortation &c. is false, so far forth as it is contrary.
The similitude you take from a naturall child who for his disobedience is not to be reputed a false child but no good child, is like the rest of the your similitudes. The proportion holds not. Men may have such children as ever were, are and wilbe disobedient to their dying day, & yet they remayn theyr children whether they will or no: but if any of Gods child…en prove disobedient, and will not be disclaymed, he can dischilde them for bastards as they are, and the true children of the Divil. Ioh. 8. 44.
3. In alledging Scriptures not to prove that for which to the simple Mr. Ber.it seems to be alledged but that which is without controversy, taking the thing in questiō for granted. For this I take to be his meaning, though he expresse it ill.
The instance he brings of one of vsus cyting Act. 20. 21. to proveAnsw that all truth is not taught in the Church of England, is, I am perswaded (if not worse) mistaken by him. For who would bring Pauls example to shew what the Ministers of England do, and not rather what they should do? what they do is knowne well enough, and how both they in preaching the will of God, and the people in obeying it, are stinted at the Bishops pleasure.
4 By bringing in places setting forth the invisible Church and holynesse of the members, to set forth the visible Church by, as being proper thereto, as 1 Pet. 2. 9. 10.
That the Apostle here speaketh not of the invisible, but of the visible Church, appeareth not by our bare affirmation, which we might set gaynst Mr B. naked contradiction, yea though he bring in D. Allison in the margent to countenance the matter, but by these reasons.
1. Peter being †Gal. 2. 7.the Apostle of the Iewes wrote vntounto them whose Apostle he was, & vvhom he knew dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, &c. 1 Pet. 1. 1. But Peter was not the Apostle of the invisible, but of the visible Church which he knew so dispersed, where the invisible Church is onelyonly knowne unto God, 2 Tim. 2. 19.
2. The Apostle vseth the words of Moses to the visible Church of the Iewes, Ex. 19. 6. which do therefore well agree to the visible Church vnderunder the gospell, whose excellency, graces and holynes, do surmount the former by many degrees.
3. Peter wrytes to a Church wherein were Elders and a flock depending vpō them, to be fed & governed by them, 1 Pet …. 1. 2. 3. which to affirm of the invisible Church is not onelyonly a visible, but even a palpable error.
4. The Apostle wrytes to them which had the word preached amongst them, Chap. 1. 25. And this Mr B. himselfe, pag. 118. 119. makes a note and testimony of the visible Church, and to that pupose quotes the former chap. v. 23. as he doth also this very chap. ver. 5. which is the same with v. 9. 10. to prove the form of the visible Church. And thus I hope it appeares to all men vponupon what good groundes this man thus boldly leadeth vsus with deceiptfull dealing in the scriptures. And this instance, I desire the reader the more diligētly to observe as being singled out by Mr B. as a pickt witnes against vsus, & countenanced by D. Allisons concurring testimony, but especially because it poynts out the Apostolick Churches, clean in contrary colours to the English Synagogues, being vnholy and prophane; and this is the cause why Mr B. and others are so loth to hauehave this Scripture ment of the visible Church.
5. By inferences, and references, as if this be one this must follow, andMr B. this Mr B. calles a deceiveable and crooked waye for the intangling of the simple.
To this I have †pag. 20.answered formerly, and do agayne answer, thatAnsw. necessary consequences & inferences are both lawfull & necessary.
If Mr B. had to deale with a Papist agaynst Purgatory or with an Anabaptist for the baptizing of Infants, he should be compelled (except I be deceived) to draw his arrowes out of this quiver. And what are consequences regulated by the word (which *1 Tim. 4 4. 5.sanctifieth all creatures) but that sanctified vse of reason? & wil any reasonable man deny the vse and discourse of reason? “Ioh. 20▪ 23.If all the things which Iesus did had been written, the world could not have conteyned the books: & if all the dutyes which ly vponupon the Church to performe had been written in expresse termes, (as Mr B. requires) a world of worlds could not contayne the books which should have been written. Neyther are inferences & references iustly made, any way to be accounted wyndings, but playne passages to the truth, troden before vsus by the Lord Iesus and all his holy Apostles, which scarce alledge one scripture of three out of Moses and the Prophets but by way of inference, as all that will, may see.
But the truth is Mr Bern. hath so many times been driven to so grosse absurdities by a consequence or two about this cause, as he vtterly abhorrs the very memory of all cōsequences, & it seems would have it enacted, that never consequence should be more vrged.
To conclude, whatsoever it pleaseth this man to suggest, the mayne grounds, for which we stand touching the cōmunion, government, ministery, and worship of the visible Church, are expresly conteyned in the scriptures and that (as we are perswaded) so plainly, that as like Habbakuks vision, he *Hab. 2. 2that runnes may read them.
The 4. guesse against vsus is.