deceyt The whole Church is a kingdom of Preists that is of ministers who are to be guided and governed by their Officers caled also ministers in more special manner for the holy and orderly practise of the power And thus the Prophets foretold the state of the Christian Church saying strangers shal stand and feed your sheep and the sonns of strangers shal be your plowmen and dressers of your vines but ye shal be named the Preists of the Lord men shal say unto you The Ministers of our God Where the Officers of the Church are coÌ„pared to pastours husbandmen as the new testament also coÌ„firmeth vvhich should be of the converted Gentiles and the Church it self is the Lords preisthood and his Ministers Sixtly they ask whither we in the Churches goverment as the Anabaptists in the sacraments would not make them aliens from the coÌ„mon wealth of Jsrael c. I answer this was in their fourth observation before and there is by me answered I trust without absurdity or ungodlynes errors or evils all which they here insinuate against us for to fyll up their mesure But here agayn the reason deceiveth the reader for in sted of coÌ„mon-wealth or politie they bring in one body one Lord one faith of theirs and ours c. Ephe. 2. c. Al this we grant but the outward politie goverment we deny to be the same it being changed by Christ both for Citie Sanctuarie Dan. 9.26 There was alwayes one Lord faith of the Church but not alwayes one politie The kingdom and preisthood were first executed by one person as in Melchisedek afterward these functions were divided Kings might not doo the Preists work Also the civil government in Israel was changeable somtime without a King sometime with one yea sometime by hethen Kings as Nebuchadnezar Cyrus c to whom the Israelites were bound to be subject but not so in their sacraments that ther is no just consequence to be drawn froÌ„ the one of these to the other We rather may ask of our opposites whether they as the Papists would not draw us froÌ„ the testament of Christ vvho was faithful as Moses in al his house to the Ievvish politie novv abolished And let them tell us vvhether ther may be novv Archbishops over other Bishops and Ministers as in Israel there were Archpreists over other Preists and Levites or a superior court to hear the appeals from particular synagogues cities now as was then and whether the ministers of the Church now may be captayns of politik armies as Benajah son of Iehojada the cheif Preist was general of the feild in Ioabs room Such orders have been heretofore in Israel Seventhly they ask why we speak not of our selves what we pleaded to be the church spoken of Mat. 18 17. c. I answer because our plea is already set forth in sundry books as the Discovery the Reâ—itation of M. Gifford the Apologie the Treatise of the Ministerie against M. Hildersh the Answer to White c. And I ask of them agayn why they answer not the things already published in so many treatises but fish for more matter by subtile questions as if men had nothing ells to doo but answer al things that they write and demand and to let them range at wil without orderly answering as is meet They say some of us taught it to be the whole church alleging to that end Num. 15.33 27.2 and 35.12 I answer first we taught then no otherweise then as them selves taught heretofore with us Secondly we alleged many other scriptures and reasons both from the Prophets and Apostles though it please them to omitt those and cull out these against which they think they have more colour to contend For hereupon they thus argue 1 Jf this rule be found in the book of Numbers c. then it is not a new rule first given in Mat. 18.17 I answer they wrong us and would deceiv the reader we alleged not those scriptures to prove the rule to be the same then and now but to give light unto the question by shewing what was the peoples right then under the law and under the Magistrate which may be more but can not be less now under the gospel where the church ministery hath not the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage The Apostle applieth many things from Aarons preisthood to Christ yet he maketh Christs preisthood not to be after Aarons order but Melchisedeks should men now thus carp at his allegations Then they say those scriptures speak of civil goverment which we except about the Elders but they suppose we wil not give to the people civil authoritie I answer first them selves grant that the people have as much right and power now as they had in Israel but we deny they can never prove that the ministers now have as much authority over the people as had the Princes of Israel so our reasoning is good though theirs be naught Secondly for civil authoritie as we never chalenged it so neyther should it be objected to them but that they wil have it to be no new rule Then say we it must be left to the Magistrate and ministers may not intrude into their place And seing they thus urge it let them if they please clear them selves whither they think not that the Elders of the church may have civil authoritie also as had the Elders in Israel Thirdly they say that by these and the like scriptures it is certayn sinners in Jsrael were brought before the congregation of Elders I answer if they mean Elders onely as they must if they reason to the matter in hand I deny it and ther is no weight in their proof For it is also certayn that Paul imposed hands on Timothee 2. Tim. 1.6 but elswhere it appeareth others also imposed hands as wel as he 1. Tim. 4.14 So the Apostles and Elders came togither about a controversie Act. 15.6 but the whole Church came togither also verse 22.23 Titus was left to ordeyn Elders Tit. 1.5 but was he to doo it himself alone The keyes were promised to Peter Mat. 16.19 but were they meant to him onely In Rev. 2.1 Iohn wrote to the Angel or Messenger of the church but by Rev. 1.11 2.7 it is plain the whole church was intended So in Israel the law sayth in a case of mariage let her goe up to the gate to the Elders Deut. 25.7.8.9 but the practise of this sheweth that the people were also interested with the Elders Ruth 4.2.7.9.11 Jn Exod. 5.1 Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh but by Exod. 3.18 we may gather that the Elders of Israel went with them also So in the place cited Num. 15.33 they brought him to Moses and to Aaron and to al the Congregation the people are here meant with the Magistrates for God then
Secondly in that place of their Treatise on Mat. 18. they quote Mat. 2◠20 as alleged for a ground yet they give not any answer to that scripture but stil call upon us to answer their questions write more Wheras Christ there encōmendeth to his disciples of all nations to the worlds end the observing of all things whatsoever he cōmanded th'Apostles And excommunication was one of those things commanded Mat. 18. 1. Cor. 5. Therfore to be observed by a Christian people though they want officers unless these men can shew some prohibition Christ requireth to observ al things these men say nay not excommunication it lyeth now on them to shew wher Christ or his Apostles have excepted excommunication But from that place and by the very same reasons doo the Anabaptists deny baptisme of Children caling for scripture example precept ground to warrant it as these doo now in this case 3. Thirdly besides al things heretofore written they have a ground in the article it self which they neyther doo nor can take away which is the power that the church alwayes hath to receiv in members and therfore consequently to cast them out agayn if they deserv it Which ground if they deny they in effect deny that ther can be any church without Elders contrary to the express scripture Act. 14.23 1. Cor. 12.28 Tit. 1.5 Yea or that ther can be any visible Christians without Elders for how can they be Christians without union with Christ And if men cannot be united with his members and body because ther wanteth Elders how should they be united with him the head 4. They have it proved a point of false doctrine by Mr Iohnson himsef to teach that the Church of Christ hath not alwayes power to receive in and to cast out by the keyes of the kingdom Answer to M. Iakob pag. 159.160 2. They secondly allege sundry examples grounds that it hath been doon by the Lord himself and by his officers c. This we never doubted of but a Church having officers may excōmunicate Though yet the proof for the Elders wil be excepted against by the Prelates and such like For th'examples of Abraham of Paul of Titus of Timothee and of the Preist judging a leper make rather in show for one Bishop then for a Church of Elders and so are alleged by Papists for the Prelacie The other scriptures doo none of them shew the Elders power to excōmunicate but to watch take heed reprove admonish c al which the Prelates grant to their inferiour Preists whom yet they wil not suffer to excommunicate with out the Bishop or his Official as these wil not the Church without an Eldership The examples of excommunicating by the Rulers of Israel I wil turn against them thus If the Magistrates and people of Israel might not onely punish civilly with death but also execute a spiritual censure of excommunication upon the consciences of evil doers though they had wanted ministers of the Temple and synagogues then a Christian magistrate and people may doo so now though they want ministers ecclesiastical And if the Church may excommunicate having a magistrate it may also do it wanting one seing the power of spiritual censure dependeth not upon the civil magistracie as the state of the Churches in the Apostles dayes sheweth 3 Thirdly they wil have us to consider how a people can chalenge the ministration of excommunication more then of the sacraments c. This we have considered and find that if the reason be good the ruling Elders may not excommunicate any more then minister the sacraments which whither they hold or no let them tel us in their next For they know wel the Prelates object these things against the ruling Elders as themselves doo now against the people 4. Fourthly they say they cannot find in scripture but when the church is caled the body of Christ or compared to a body howse city or kingdom it is spoken eyther of particular Churches having officers or of the catholik church in respect of Christ the head c. I answer it appeareth then plainly they have lost that which they had found and let them take heed least for not keeping it God deprive them of finding it any more But I wil help them if it may be by their own writing where this same author sayth A company of faithful people though considered a part by themselves they be privat men yet being gathered togither in the name of Christ and joyned togither in fellowship of his gospel they are a publick body a church a citie a kingdom and that of Jesus Christ who is present among them to guide bless and confirm what they doo on earth in his name and by his power So that like as in a city the citizens considered a part are commonly privat members yet jointly togither are the corporation and publick body of that town so is it also in the church of Christ whither it consist of moe or of fewer yea though they be but 2. or 3. so as they be joyned togither in the communion of the gospel and gathered togither in the name of Jesus Christ as before is sayd These things they have acknowledged though now it seemeth they have forgot them or which is worse doo dissemble them Vnto these I wil add th'Apostles testimonie concerning a howse Christ is the chief corner stone and Christians that come unto him as lively stones are made a spiritual howse an holy Preisthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices Men come unto Christ by beleef and are joyned unto him and one to another by mutual covenant The ministers of Christ are as builders of this howse by preaching the gospel laying first the foundation Christ then upon him Christian people Gods building But if as often cometh to pass the builders doo refuse yet the Lord without them putteth Christ for head of the corner and causeth the faithful to come unto him and maketh them his spiritual howse to dwel in them whose howse they continew to be not by having officers alway among them but by holding fast their confidence and rejoycing of hope unto the end Wherfore these men that can find no howse of God without Elders must prove that men can not come unto no◠continew in Christ unless it be by ecclesiastical officers which they shal never be able to manifest or al may see how they are beguiled with errour that they can not find things so apparant and heretofore acknowledged by themselves Ther opinion is injurious not onely to Christians but to Christ himself whiles they wil not grant him being the corner stone the head the king and the faithful the living stones his mēbers and subjects to make a howse body or kingdom if the Elders want or refuse though he as is written walketh among his Churches and is with them al dayes to the worlds end 5. Fiftly they
pag. 51.52 professeth that the hierarchie of Archbishops Lord bishops Preists c. are a strange and Antichristian Ministerie and officers not instituted in Christs Testament nor placed in or over his church These have placed over them one that was made Preist by a Lord bishops ordination so as because of it they did not ordeyn or impose hands on him when at the same time they ordeyned and imposed hands on others whom togither with him they set over the Church 5. The 32. article wherto our Apologie agreeth pag. 52.53.54 testifieth that al such as have received any of those false offices of Lord bishops Preists c. are to give over and leave them and so hath it been practised here before by al such Preists as came to our faith and Church Now one is Minister over theÌ„ ordeyned Preist by the Prelates as is before sayd The Confirmation of these points in our Apologie besides the scriptures quoted in our Confession is of the one by 8. of the other by 12. reasons deduced from many scriptures Hereunto they make these answers First that this point is of like nature with the 2. 3. here before where therfore see the answers And there also let the reader see our replies But they would blind their reader with shew of answer where none is For the first point was of every Churches power to cast out obstinate synners the secoÌ„d of their power to elect and ordeyn officers Now what are these to justify any unlawful ministerie eyther set up by a people without the power of Christ or received by the tradition of Antichrist It had been their part seing they deny their former grounds to have shewed us some better by the scripture which how they have doon eyther there or here let their writings being viewed manifest Secondly they say if wee would here imply a particular matter concerning one of their Ministers about imposition of hands that is a point also left to further consideration c. I answer no we mean others of them that were Ministers before and such as have had some of them imposition of hands twise and this they could not but see plainly to be our intent in that 4. article though they wink and wil not see it and are mute and will not defend it but wind away to other things not there intended Let them therfore in their next bring a playn defence of their Ministerie which by their new doctrine is overthrowen and use no more such tergiversation Vnto the other thing objected in the 3. 5. articles by Lawn printed First they signify that their testimonie against the antichristian hierarchie treated of in the Confession is not by them reversed or weakned any way c. I answer these are but words in deed and truth the contrary wil appear For as heretofore they proved Antichrists baptisme to be not a true but a false sacrament but now they plead for it to be the one true baptisme of Christ so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian hierarchie of prelates Preists c. their offices entrance and administration they now compare the popish ordination with the baptisme Also they bring to warrant this the Preists and Levites which were caled of God as after is to be seen and yet they would be thought not to reverse their testimonie Secondly they tel us how they were combred with the Anabaptists and occasioned to think of their ministerie as 1 That imposition of hands is of God and not an invention of Antichrists c. I answer thus also they shal be occasioned to think of the Popes excommunication for that is Gods ordinance as wel as their sacrameÌ„t of orders and of the Romish Mass or supper for that is Gods ordinance also though by them abused to idolatrie Yea thus the Iewes that fâ—l to paganisme mought take occasion to think of the hetheÌ„s sacrifices for they also were Gods ordinances in their first institutioÌ„ as wel as Antichrists sacraments But as for the Anabaptists theÌ„selves long since so refuted them without this their new plea that ther needed no fear of their strength at al. Finally the impositioÌ„ of hands by an Antichristian prelate upon that ministerie which is not of Christ but of Antichrists apostasie I deny that such imposition of hands is of God and that such the whole ministerie of Rome is is proved at large by many scriptures in M. Iohnsons Reasons and Arguments against spiritual coÌ„munion with the Mâ—nist pag. 17.18 c â— Their second observation is that baptism and imposition of hands are joyned togither among the principles Heb. 6 2. I answer so are baptism the Lords supper now of Antichristians caled the Mass joyned in 1. Cor. 10.2.3 12.13 that if this reason be good their next thoughts must be about the lawfulnes of the Mass. 3. Thirdly they allege that imposition of hands is in Rome stil given to the office of ministerie and in the name of the Lord. I answer so also the Popes bulls of excoÌ„munication goe forth from the office of Ministery and in the name of the Lord but so all mischeif began and gave occasion to the proverb in nomine Domini incipit omne malum But let us take a view how imposition of hands is used now in Rome as they say in the name of the Lord. Ordination of ministers there is a sacrament the outward signe or rite wherof is imposition of hands the thing signifyed is the promise of grace They have seven orders Preists or Sacrificers Deacons Subdeacons Aâ—oluthes Exorcists Readers and Ostiaries or keepers of the dore They are made Preists when by the Bishop who onely can give this order it is sayd Receiv power to offer sacrifice vnto God and to celebrate Masses both for the living and for the dead in the name of the Lord. The Bishop sayth with al Receiv the holy Ghost the Preists are also shaved on their crownes and anoynted with oyl on their hands that by that unction and the Bishops bles †sing those hands may be consecrated and sanctified of God A stole of innocencie is put upon the Preist and he promiseth to the Bishop and his successors reverence and obedience and the Bishop gives him again the blessing of God the Fa †ther the †Son and the holy †Ghost that he may be blessed in his preistly order and may offer placable hosts or sacrifices to God for the synns of the people This ordination hath a double effect 1. a perpetual spiritual power in sign wherof a character or mark indeleble is imprinted on them and 2. grace making them acceptable wherby they are inabled to execute their office So this Bishoply ordination conferreth grace and if any shal say that the holy Ghost is not given hereby let him sayth the Council of Trent be accursed This is that holy ordination or rather that abominable Idol and mark of the
who had power from God to give the blessing and the action was also confirmed by the evidence of Gods spirit afterward but this people upon our opposites doctrine had no authority from God to doo as they did neyther could they shew any confirmation of the work by God if our former grounds fayl us The sentence given in the end by the Elders that leaned to the Pastors error was not that discourse they speak of at the end of the Treatise on Mat. 18. for that was privately penned afterward by the Pastor himself but a breif and yet large approbation of the things which the Pastor had shewed to be the truth and a promise that by the grace of God they would so practise Vpon which sentence giving we on the contrary approved our former profession published and shewed sundry reasons which hereafter shal be set down why we could not yeild to their new vowed practise And because they alwayes sought to extenuate the controversie as if it were but a strife about words or about the meaning of Mat. 18.17 We purposely prevented it signifying expressly before we parted that we would bear with them in their understanding of Mat. 18.17 so as they would yeild the point in controversie which was about the Churches power from other scriptures shewing it also by an other case that if we had to deal upon John 1. with an Arian that denyes the godhead of Christ if he would plainly and sincerely yeild to the truth of that doctrine though he thought it not proved by Iohn 1 where yet it is evidently proved we would bear with him therin And this we still offer unfeighnedly to these our opposite brethren let them yet directly and plainly renounce the error it self touching the power of the church now ingrossed into the Elders hands and the other errours that necessarily flow from the same and we wil bear with their judgement concerning Mat. 18.17 though we think of it otherweise that doo they Moreover seing we offred much more which concerneth not onely Mat. 18.17 but al other scriptures that we would notwithstanding our difference of judgement have continued together if our former practise might have been reteyned and themselves in their Advertisement can not deny this how doo they then bear the world in hand that the breach among us vvas for the understanding of Math. 18.17 Touching their Treatise on Mat. 18.17 the causes why I have not answered it are 1. When others heretofore as namely Mr. Smyth wrote against the truth which they formerly professed we al thought best not to answer til the second and third time we were excedingly provoked for we considered how the coÌ„mon adversary would rejoyce at our intestine troubles The same I minded here and these men should if they were not partial have doon the like 2. I had experience in former dealing vvith M. Smyth of his unstayednes that vvould not stand to the things vvhich himself had vvritten I mind the like in these Opposites vvho are not setled for the constitution of their Church and Ministerie upon any ground that I knovv of unless it be popish succession Their former vvritings about the Church and ministery and their present estate wil not stand togither Seing those books are unanswered by others they should answer them if they can themselves and shew us by Gods word what is allowable vvhat disallovvable in them Till they doo this vvho vvould vvillingly deal vvith them 3. Ther are 9. reasons in that our Apologie to confirm the povver of the Church novv in question the foresaid Treatise dealeth but against one of them leaving the rest there and vvhatsoever is vvritten of that argumeÌ„t in other our books unansvvered what reason have they to cal so upon others to write when so much is already written If they yeild us the cause upon the other reasons we wil not strive about the meaning of one scripture as before vve shevved 4. The meaning of Mat. 18.17 is handled by Mr. Robinson against Mr Bernard vvhose book our opposites so much respected and the false gloses upon that text sufficiently refuted vvhy doo not these men ansvver the things there vvritten but cal styl for more as if al men must leav other studies to folovv them in their hunting for preeminence 5. I have had intelligence of Mr. Robinsons further purpose to ansvver in particular that their treatise as occasion shal be given And in deed I for the love and respect that I have alvvayes had to these novv opposite brethren have desired their conviction rather by others then by my self vvho are both better able to perform it and are likely to be more regarded then I and to doo it vvith less publik scandal to the vvorld vvho desire nothing more then to see us that vvere so neerly joyned to sharpen our penns one against another Thus have I been stayed hitherto though novv as the things in that Treatise are repeted in this their Advertisement I shal discover also the insufficiencie of their reasons there alleged Novv as the Advertiser shevveth by examples of troubles in â—hurches heretofore that the godly vvise should not be offended at these dissensions accordingly doo I desire all syncere harted for to vvalk And further that he himself vvith others vvould look into the 3. particulars that he allegeth 1. For the troubles in Corinth the Apostle composeth by shevving the Church their place in Christ above their ministers 1. Cor. 3.21.22.23 vvhich might also if it vvere vvel observed end the strife that is novv among us 2. The contention about Easter as it vvas evil in it self being about mens traditions so vvas it as ill caried For they learned not to redress things as Paul before taught 1. Cor. 3. but contrarivveise as Hierom after telleth us by setting up one Elder about others that the seeds of schismes might be taken away Which humane vvisdom furthering the mysterie of Antichrist so far prevailed that about this their Easter strife Victor Bishop of Rome determined to have excoÌ„municated the East churches and had doon it but that Irenaeus blamed him and stayed it Thus ambition having vvrung the povver first out of the vvhole Churches hands into the Elders onely and then out of the Elders hands joyntly into ones alone began to vvork factions and styrrs in the churches vvorse then ever before 3. The troubles vvhich they speak of in the English church at Frankford in Q. Maryes dayes is even a picture of our present calamities and vvorthy of perpetual remembrance For there vvhen M. Horn the pastor vvith his felovv Elders vsurped authority above the church they vvere vvel vvithstood by the body of the congregation among vvhom vvere sundry men of vvisdom and learning And to appease that strife by the Magistrates counsel they agreed upon articles vvhich directly overthrovv the errors so stood for by these our opposers For thus the printed Discourse of the troubles of that church sayth The Discipline
give us a distinction between the sentence of excōmunication and between the execution therof As in Jsrael the Elders Preists had a rightful power to giue out the sentence of death of leprosie according to the law without asking the peoples consent yea though it should have been without and against it Deut. 1.16 17.8.12 24.8 with 2. Chrō 26.16.20 Levit. 13. c. and then it was for the people to perform the execution accordingly so the Elders now may by office give out the sentence of excōmunication according to the law of God the people should accordingly put it in execution by avoiding the excōmunicate persons til they repent I answer this comparison is faulty many wayes First it speaketh onely of a rightful power wheras the thing they should answer to is both rightful and able power as themselves once distinguished or let them say whether the Church that Christ sendeth to for redress of syn hath not able power to excōmunicate 2. Secondly it matcheth the power of the Ministers in spiritual things with the power of the Magistrates in civil things which what is it but to make the one Lords spiritual as the other are Lords temporal according to the Popish hierarchie 3. Thirdly it misseth in the proportion of the Preists judging leprosie for Gods law in Lev. 13.2 is that the suspected person should be brought to Aarō the Preist or to one of his sons the Preists and the Preist should look and pronounce him unclean or clean as he discerned it The proportion hereto now is one Bishop or Minister rather than a Church of Ministers for if one Preist might judge then why may not one Minister judge now Doe not the Papists which allege this very example and apply it to one Preist make a fitter proportiō then they that deny this power unto one and yet apply it unto many 4. Fourthly thus farr I grant this proportion that as every Preist then might according to the law declare what was leprosie so every Minister now may and ought by the law to declare what is syn and heresie and this though it be without and against the consent of the Church of all the world Ezek. 3.17 21.2 Tim. 4..1.2 Tit. 1.9 But as then not the preist onely but the children of Israel put every leper out of the host so now not the minister onely but the childrē of Christ the church are to put the wicked out frō among them as the Apostle sheweth 5. Fiftly if the Elders the Magistrates might as these men say give sentence of death against a man though without and against the peoples consent then it was for the people to perform the execution then that people I say were in great subjection and servitude to their Elders that must execute that man to whose death they cōsented not and to shape the Ministers power now accordingly is to make them Lords and the Church their subjects and servants yea the Pope himself never had men in greater slaverie I know when Gods law condemned a man if it were shewed by all or any one of the Iudges or Preists or Prophets yea or Israelites the people should in order have executed him but oft times the heads of the people judged for rewards the Princes as Lions the Iudges as Wolves devoured them the Preists polluted the sanctuarie and wrested the law And then the people of the land whose duty also it was to look to open wickednes were neyther to folow the many nor mighty in evil And that the Iudges had power to put any man to death whom the people judged innocent I find not but would see it proved I find how in Naboths case though it were a wicked fact ther was a solemn fast and assemblie of the people with the governours how in Ieremies case he was accused to the Princes and people made his defense to princes and people and was acquitted by princes and people When King Saul sware that Ionathan should dye the people sware the contrary saved him from death when the high preists scribes would have kylled Christ they feared the people Luk. 20.19 22.2 and the people as wel as the rulers were caled before Pilate about Christs death Luk. 23.13 and by their voices prevayled Mat. 27.20.22.25.26 Luk 23.23 So that to prove the Ministers sole power now for to cut off a man from the Church by the Magistrates power then to cut off a man from Israel neyther is the proportion just if it were so neyther yet is it manifested that so it was in Israel 6. Sixtly the proportion which they here make is so misshapen that I marvel wise men would ever bring it forth to the view of the world For they make the avoiding of the excommunicated person by the people to be the executing of the sentence of excommunication wheras this censure is properly executed by him that in the name of Christ and with consent of the Church delivereth the wicked man to Satan as the Apostle willeth 1. Cor. 5. which being doon the man is certaynly excommunicated whither the people avoyd his company or not And if they otherweise here understand the word execution they doo but deceiv the reader with an aequivocation This their other example of the sentence of death and the execution therof wil plainly manifest For Pilate gave sentence of death upon Christ the souldjers that kylled him with nayles and spear they executed the sentence of death as we commonly speak and understand Then Ioseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus embaulmed him with myrrh wound him in a sheet and layd him in grave shal we say that these two now were the executioners of Christ because they caryed themselves towards him as towards a dead man Or if any refreyned from touching a dead man that had been hanged least by him they should be polluted did they here by execute him No more doo they properly execute the sentence of excommunication which avoyd the company of one excommunicated 7. But because al the weight of their wrested proportion frō Israel is couched herein let us look upon it a litle more In their Treatise on Mat. 18. there they say in Jsrael such as would not hearken to the Preists and Judges were to dye by the hands of the people Deut. 17. Agayn they say delivering to Satan in 1. Cor. 5. is in sted of death in Jsrael Levit. 20.11 By this one would think that the people now should deliver a wicked man to Satan when the Elders have judged him worthy otherweise how stands the proportion But they mean nothing less for a litle after they tel vs in the Churches excommunication ther is the giving of a sentence judiciarie which perteyneth to government and authority there is also in particular a delivering to Satan by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ c. which likewise
deed is the surest argument of al save that it is a fayr begging of the quaestion For the thing they should prove is that their constitution is according to Israel or Apostolik For if Israel or the primitive Churches before they had officers did or might receiv in and cast out members and if the people might set up and depose officers by power from God then are these mens errors overthrown If not but that the thing is unlawful for any then or now so to doo then is the constitution of their Church overthrown as that which did grow up to such estate without power from heaven and they are to let it fal and be rooted up and come to a better if they can find it according to the scriptures Whether therfore our exception or their defense be more vayn frivolous as they speak let the prudent judge The 3. point of difference in the Letter 1. WE had learned that every Christian congregation hath power and coÌ„mandement to elect and ordeyn their own Ministerie according to the rules of Gods word and upon such default in life doctrine or administration as by the rule of the word depriveth them of the ministerie by due order to depose them from the ministerie they exercised yea if the case so require orderly to cut them of by excommunication But now it is by some mainteyned that the Congregation can neyther put into office nor put out of office unless they have officers to doo both and can neyther for heresie or other wickednes excommunicate or depose their Eldership With this they joyn the first out of the printed copy which is as the former These things are confirmed in our Articles by Act. 6.3.5.6 14.23 15.2.3.22.23 2. Cor. 8.19 1. Tim. 3.10 4.14 5.22 Num. 8.9.10 1. Cor. 16.3 Tit. 1.5 c. Eph. 4.11.12 1. Cor. 12.7.8.14.15.28 Levit. 8. ch Rom. 16.17 Phil. 3.2 1. Tim. 6.3.5 Ezek. 44.12.13 Mat. 18.16 And in our Apologie by 7. reasons deduced froÌ„ the Scriptures Hereunto they say 1. That the church may excommunicate an officer as wel as any other member I answer they yet touch not the point We speak of the churches ministerie or Eldership in general they tel us of one in particular who because ther ar other ministers he may be censured by them Bur if a church have onely one minister and he prove a wolf they can neyther put him out of office nor excoÌ„municate him by their doctrine 2. Secondly they say if al the officers jointly transgress and so persist then the church which did chuse theÌ„ may also depose and refuse them from being their officers any longer and may separate themselves from them But that the people may excommunicate al their officers they desire to see it shewed from the word I answer though they can not deny the Article yet they seek covertly to cary the reader aside The article speaketh of chusing and ordeyning and so putting into office they answer onely of chusing the other they pass by But let them shew ever any church where men were chosen and not also ordeyned and put into office or that God committed the beginning of such a work to any people and not the ending also And why wil they sever the things God hath joyned In the law the church had authoritie to make them that is as the Greek version sheweth constitute or ordeyn which word Paul useth Tit. 1.5 Judges and officers in al their cities and not to elect them onely 2. The article speaketh of deposing from ministery and putting out of office they answer onely of deposing and refusing from being their officers any longer That is to say as men that have left the church of Rome have deposed the Pope for in separating from him he is their officer no longer But is he not trow we a Pope stil And shal not an Eldership when the people have doon al this that they speak of reteyn a ministery stil The separation which they tel us of is thus opened by their own comment that it implieth the power we have over our selves wheras excommunication implieth power and authoritie over others Thus they allow not the body of the Church power and authority over their heretical Eldership though it be but 2. or 3. wicked men to cast them out of the Church in Christs name and power or to depose them from office but from being their officers Even thus they themselves hâ—ve deposed al the Bishops of England long agoe But whether this be not to aequivocate with the word depose let wise men jâ—dge for a litle after they ask whether it can be shewed by any scripture that any did ordeyn or depose officers but Governours Now wheras our 〈◊〉 Apologie is confirmed by many scriptures reasons deduced from them they answer them not as is meet they should seing they wil abrogate their former profession and bring in a new neither doo they as they then wrote must be doon shew some other manner of entrance into the ministerie ordeyned by Christ but thus they labour to confute themselves 1. The particuculars of the 23. Article of our Confession being found true in the churches of Jsrael and of the Gentlies since Christ the exception made hereabout can not be of weight against this or any other Church established according to the word of God as those were but must be also against those Churches withal What to make of this their answer as yet I cannot tell my slendernes coÌ„prehendeth not the depth of it That the particulars of that 23. article were found true in the Churches of God I doubt not of it that is the thing we stand for That exception should be made by us hereabout against this or any Church established according to the word of God as these were is farr from our thought What is it then that they have sayd but an ostentation of the name of Jsrael their mayn colourable argument which yet is against them not for them at all as our CoÌ„fession and Apologie sheweth In Israel the whole Congregation was assembled at the ordination of their ministers and the childreÌ„ of Israel imposed hands upon them This rule we folow but these our opposites wil not allow churches unless they have ministers before to doo thus they wil rather have their ministerie from the great Antichrist of Rome as after shal be manifested for which they have no shew in the scriptures For did Israel ever take Egyptian or Babylonian preists to minister in their sanctuary or did the primitive churches ever take any Bishop of the Antichrists that were in there time set them by vertue of their Antichristian ordination over the flock of Christ why then doo these men so ofteÌ„ tel us of Jsrael and the primitive churches unless they think their very names would make us afrayd But they except against Num. 8.9.10 saying by the children of Jsrael c. are
Bishops Preists Deacons any better then the state of lay men but farr worse for we judge them to be nothing ells but Antichristianitie heresie and blasphemie And therfore we receiv none of them to minister in our church except they forswear your religion and so their admission is not an allowing of your ordering but a new caling unto the Ministerie Thus wrote M. Fulk but now these our opposites to shew how they would keep coÌ„munion with Rome allow of their ordering as of their baptising which they plead to be true baptisme as after shall appear Yet let them shew us whither al the hierarchie of Antichrist as Popes Cardinals Archbishops Bishops Friers Monks Iesuits Seminaries Preists Parsons Vicars with the rest of that crew be all of them to be admitted true Ministers into a Christian church by vertue of the Imposition of hands had in that kingdom of the Beast and if not al which of them must be reordeyned and vvhich not Themselves have acknowledged that the Ministers of Antichrist are the spirits of Divils Rev. 16 13.14 let them now if they can manifest them to be the Ministers of Christ. 9. We thought best say they to stay and consider further c. if we find it ought to be doon we can doe it at any time c. Then say I they should have stayed the practise of admitting such a teacher to administer til they had been resolved whither his office and ordination had been of God or no. But first they let him administer then they inquire of the lawfulnes the Godly heretofore did not so in a case of doubt but stayed the administration of some preists til they had assurance from God Ezr. 2.62.63 10. The church say they did chuse him into office and we by prayer commended him to God for his grace and assistance in the ministration therof Which we did without imposition of hands at that time as both our selves had before doon at our first growing into order and as the French and Dutch churches also did c. I answer things are darkly set down by saying first the church did then and we they occasion us to ask what church they mean their own particular or some other If their own whether they chose him to an office that had none before or chose him from a false office to a true or chose him being already a true officer to be theirs as they admitt the members of an other Church to be a member of theirs by prayer If the last were not how stands their comparison between baptism ordination If they did so then they abuse the reader with the example of their own ordination before For they had renounced their former Ministerie as false and received a new by the election and ordination of the people though at the first without that sign spokeÌ„ of who gave them a ministerie which they never had The outward sign at that time was not used onely because ther were not Elders before now ther were Elders which imposed hands at the same time on others It is a known fallacie to pretend that for a cause which is not the cause Moreover let them say whither theiâ— Teachers former election were not as holy as his ordination and why then they repâ—te one and not an other 11. Observ say they how these and their partakers can hold that the people having no office may excoÌ„municate and some of them that they may also minister the sacraments and yet can except against such as are in office if they doo but make question of a ceremonie c. I answer the first wee hold but as themselves heretofore did upon what ground they have left it is before discussed The second as touching us so farr as I know is a slander a mere untruth I know not one among us that holdeth men without office may minister the sacraments The third if it be as they say a question but of a ceremonie and not of the very substance of the ministerie to be reteyned as their baptisme I wil profess to cease striving thereabout though I think they err in it yea and repent that I have striven so farr But if it be in deed more then a ceremonie as I suppose the things forespoken wil manifest let these men take heed how they so dissemble for Woe vnto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord. Of the Anabaptists objections we have spoken before And now let him that readeth consider what weight ther is in their later thoughts compared with their former judgments confirmed by so many reasons as the publik writings shew Let him also note how for this later point which they count but a ceremonie they say many things as we have heard but for the former their own ministerie which is a matter of substance and most neerly concerns them they say nothing but turn aside as if they saw it not And for this also let the reader observ Mr Iohnsons own words in answer to Mr HildershaÌ„ who can bring a clean thing out of filthynes Is it possible that a lawful ordination should be had from the ministers Apostasie of Antichrist Mat. 7.16 2. Cor. 6 14 15 16. with 2. Thes. 2.3 And if he be loth to stand to his former assertions let him yet shew what comfort or assuraÌ„ce any can have of the ordination in the Papacie that it is froÌ„ heaveÌ„ considering the Preists have their authoritie from the Bishops the Bishops from the Pope the Popes as their own writers Chroniclers doo record have been divided by schismes 2 or 3 Popes at once one cursing and condemning another and among the successors one repealing the acts of an other And among the rest one shee Pope Ioan an harlot And among many schismes one which was the 22. dured fourtie yeres wherin the Antipopes so rent their Babel-church into factions that the cheifest and learnedest of the clergie could not discern which of them was the true successor of Peter as they use to speak but some clave to one Pope some to another Had these noâ— power from Christ to make ministers in his church or are not they strangely caried that had rather derive their Ministerie by uncertayn succession froÌ„ such beasts then from the Lords true Church and people And may we think that when God bring the Iewes agayn to the fayth as he hath promised that they wil goe to Antichrists throne for to erect a ministerie for them These and the like things considered may shew what soundnes is in their doctrine and practise that fetch their ordination from Rome as they doo their baptisme Finally let me admonish the reader that The man of syn who boasteth himself to be the Bishop of the whole world as also to have the Princedom or soveraygntie of al the world and may not onely order and degrade preists but set up and depose Princes so exalting himself above
al that is caled God is for thus doing to be accounted a traytor against Christ and al Princes of the world And as the dayes have been when he chalenged both church and crown of England as in King Iohns time to have the Prince his vassal as wel as the Preists his subjects so is his wil to doo alwayes and in al places But this being tyrannie and usurpation in him both over church and common wealth he hath alwayes had as good authority to make a Lord Maior in London as to make a Bishop there and to create a Prince as wel as a Preist or prelate the one is injurious to the State the other to the Church And for men to hold or derive the preisthood or ministerie from that Vsurper hath no more warrant that I know of then if one would hold or derive a magistracie from him for as God hath given every cōmon wealth power next under himself to cal set up Magistrates according to the lawes of Realmes so Christ hath given every church power next under himself to call and constitute ministers according to his word and not to derive their spiritual functions from his professed Adversarie whom he hath promised to consume with the spirit of his mouth to abolish with the brightnes of his cōming The 5. point of difference in the Letter 1. WEe had learned that it was gross errour and notorious absurditie eyther to hold the Popish Church to be a true Church having a true Ministerie and true sacraments or ells that men men must admitt of rebaptising But now we have heard that the baptisme of the Popish church is true baptisme by which we are bound to cōmunion or ells that men must be rebaptised and that the church of Rome is the Church of God because Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God With this they joyn the 4. 8. out of the printed copie 4. The 31. Article of our Confession and also our Apologie p. 109. professeth that such ecclesiastical assemblies as remayn so in confusion and bondage under that Antichristian ministerie courts canons c. cannot be estemed true visible churches c. These now plead not onely for thē but for Rome it self to be the true church of God 8. The 8. is as the 5. before expressed These things are confirmed by sundry scriptures and reasons in the places quoted as the reader may there see Against these their former testimonies they now thus dispute 1 Jt is true baptisme as the circumcision in Jsraels Apostasie was true circumcision I answer these are their own assertions but we would hear Thus sayth the Lord. True circumcision was the seal of the righteteousnes of faith Rom. 4.11 Israel in their Apostasie were fallen from the faith Hos. 11 12. they were without the true God without preist to teach and without law 2. Chron. 15.3 and how then could they have the true circumcision the seal of the righteousnes of faith and forgivnes of their synns in that sinful estate 2. The matching of Popish baptisme and Israels circumcision though in this they agree that they are both false sacraments lying signes yet is baptisme ten times more defiled in Rome then circumcision was in Israel Let us take a view therof as it is at the best and now refined by the Iesuites When any man comes to be baptised in Poperie after some quaestions praemised 1. He hath the sign of the Cross made on his forehead and breast which holy signe among other good properties hath power to drive away divils 2. Then foloweth Exorcisme that is adjuration of the Divils to goe frō the man that is to be baptised 3. After that comes Exsufflatiō or blowing of the Divils away an afflation of the good spirit in their sted 4. Next foloweth the tasting of salt which is unto them in sted of the Eucharist 5. Then the touching of the nosthrills and eares with spittle and saying Ephata that is be opened 6. After that the preist gives him imposition of hands and his blessing 7. And then he is anoynted with blessed oil on his brest and showlders 8. When he is thus sanctified a name is given unto him 9. He must have Godfathers or Godmothers to instruct him in time to come 10. Then folowes consecration of the water 11. And a dipping three times into the water in the name of the Father of the Son of the holy Ghost 12. After comes the kyss of peace in sign that the brother is baptised 13. And an Vnction of the Chrisme on the crown of his head 14. Then is a waxe candle lighted given him for a sign of faith and grace received that he is trāslated out of darknes into light 15. And a white garment is put upō him which he weareth for a certayn time These pageants are playd in Babels language an unknown tongue this baptisme ex opere operato by the work wrought for here is a great deal more doon then Christ ever would dooth conferr grace and in very deed taketh away al synns so as they are not onely not imputed but ther is not any thing that can be imputed for a blame unto him And if any shal say that grace is not conferred by the work doon the Fathers of the Council of Trent have decreed Let him be accursed And although this baptism be of it self so gracious yet any graceless person may baptise in time of need be it man or woman be it Christian Jew Turk or Pagan baptisme hath his effect conferreth popish grace and washeth away synns notwithstanding This is the baptisme about which we contend now let us proceed with our opposites arguments Jf ◠be not a true baptisme say they it is a false and false baptism is not Gods baptisme c. A true baptisme we are bound to have when we have the means wherfore they that hold it not to be true baptisme must be rebaptised I answer we doubt not but it is a false baptisme and a lying signe wherwith Antichrist deceiveth his subjects under a shew of Christianitie 1. because it is not possible for any work of a mere man much less of a sacrilegious preist to give grace or to take away synns for this is peculiar to Christ God and man and to his most precious blood which onely clenseth us from al syn 2. because true baptisme being a sign of the washing away of synns and a seal of the righteousnes of faith of our ingraffing into Christ his death burial resurrection it cannot be that Antichrist the man of syn and his worshippers which are by the sentence of God devote unto damnation should have from God such a sign and seal but they falsly usurp the same as many other things to their just judgement Yet need not men that discern and forsake those lyes and impostures to have any new washing
up in the place of Christ and his precious blood which it is not pretending to give grace and wash away synns which it dooth not but it is a lye in the right hand of al that so receiv it and the saying of the Apostle is verified in it an idol is nothing in the world 1 Cor. 8.4 Yet I hope they think not that the Apostle is contrarie to the Prophet who sayth their idols are silver and gold the work of mens hands Psal. 115.4 an idol then for the matter and workmanship is somthing but for the relation unto God or divine grace it is nothing and thus th'Apostle meaneth as his next words shew ther is no other God but one So Popish baptisme as touching the material thing is somwhat the salt the water the oil are God creatures the outward action is the work of the hands of an idolatrous Preist and this work remayneth as did the work of the Idolaters circumcising in Israel but as touching the relation which is the mayn thing in a sacrament that it should seal up unto them the forgivnes of synns and as they blasphemously say quite take away synns and conferr grace so it is a vayn idol and nothing for neyther doo the true Sacraments in Christs church work any such effect to Gods own people and as for that Antichristian synagogue it is not appointed to salvation but to condemnation by the just sentence of God Rev. 17.11 18.8.20.21 2. Thes. 2.11.12 Therfore it wil not help them to say that baptisme in it self considered is Christs ordinance for the brazen Serpent was in it self Gods ordinance at first and a sacramental signe of their redemption by Christ yet they that burnt incense to it made it an Idol and therfore as Nehushtan a peece of brass it was destroyed Yea this is acknowledged of the popish baptisme by the most learned and conscionable of our own Land M. Perkins sayth and proveth it The Church of Rome transformeth the sacraments to Jdols by teaching that they conferr grace ex opere operato by the work doon c. To this effect sayth he the Preist is appointed to pray that the nature of waters might conceiv the vertue of sanctification that God would make the water fruitful by the secret admixtioÌ„ of his godhead that having coÌ„ceived sanctification a new creature may spring out of the immaculate womb of the divine fountayn that it may be living water c. Yea further he sheweth that God himself Christ being worshiped in at or before an image is presently transformed into an idol But what need I insist upon other men even Mr Iohnson himself hath pleaded the Prelates and Preists which administer baptisme to be Jdol shepheards the sacraments to be not true but false and citeth against them their own testimonies to prove that Christ himself is made an idol among theÌ„ Yet loe how he now inveigheth against us for saying that the baptisme in Antichrists synagogue is an Idol But now as Satan hath begun to perswade Antichrists christening to be Christs true baptisme although the scripture plainly sayth what concord hath Christ with Belial so he wil not cease there but justify the cursed Mass by like reason to be the blessed Supper of our Lord. For it is the same church that injoyeth these 2. sacram ts the same preists minister them both in the same Babylonish unknown language both of theÌ„ having Christs institutioÌ„ abused by the man of syn and as water is in their baptisme so bread and wine is in their mass as in baptism they use the name of the Father the Son the holy Ghost so in the Mass they use Take eat this is my body c. Now why should one of these sacraments be true and not an other Al that are not Antichrists bondmen detest his Mass as a monstrous idol let them that lyst honour his baptism Agayn excoÌ„munication is Gods ordinance as wel as baptisme and these our opposits say that by it a man is cut off from communion with al churches of Christ upon earth having his synns also bound in heaven as on the contrary by baptisme we are entred into communion with al churches of Christ in the world This Excommunication the church of Rome useth as wel as baptisme and hath power from Christ to doo it as wel as to baptise wherupon it wil folow if we be bound to communion with them that they baptise we are also bound to avoyd the communion of them that they excommunicate Now for asmuch as these our Opposites themselves besides al other that have separated from the church and doctrines of Rome have many curses and Anathemaes layd upon them by the council of Trent and Popes Bulls what ar they the better for being baptised in their infancie now that they are excommunicated in their mans age They told us before and sayd we have not yet learned it as we should that by our baptism we ar bound to communion and now let them also teach us whither by their excommunication we ar not bound to shun their communion Or if they wil not answer us let them answer the Papists who plead that their Apostate preists being divided and cut of from the church and excommunicate may not lawfully minister the sacraments And wheras M. Iewel complayned we have been cast out by these menâ— being cursed of them as they use to say with bâ—l book and candel Harding answereth To be excommunicate ye have deserved c. neyther were ye by excommunication put from vs til ye had by contumacie severed your selves from the Church and shewed your selves desperate and incorrigible And what wil they say to the Synedrion the representative church of England whose excoÌ„munications ipso facto if they be of the Lord doo forbid al Christians to coÌ„municate with these men that thus plead for Antichrists baptisme yea they wil tel M. Iohnson in his own words that it is a fearful syn their Church being a true Church to contemne their excoÌ„munication If they answer their excoÌ„munications are unjust therfore they are of no weight this wil not salve the sore For 1. al excoÌ„municated wil say they are cast out unjustly shal their own sayings be accepted if not then neyther these mens til their particular causes be cleared In the mean time men wil more regard the church then him that is cast out of the Church and according both to Christs doctrine the doctrine of the Church of England he should be estemed an hethen and publican 2. Agayn many have been cast out for contemptuous refusing to come unto the Bishops synedrion they have left those Bishops Ministers Consistories Churches as being al false and Antichristian unto whom no church duty of admonition c. did belong And now that these men have changed their mind and count it a true Church and
as shal be saved Rev. 18 4. Their starr or Bishop is long since fallen from heaven and in sted of Peters keyes he received the key of the bottomless pit which he opened and brought up a smoke of heresies and darkned all truth and means therof and sent abroad his clergie the Locusts to sting and poyson mens souls by calling them from God to worship Divils And these things Mr Iunius himself hath applied to the popish hierarchie Touching the papacie say they or papal hierarchie caled ecclesiastical we say not that it is the church properly so caled but an accident growing to the church and which covertly worketh against the life and health of the church For the papacie is an order humane and naught the church is an assembly divine c. And after they say The papacie is in the church as the order of apostasie in the howse of God 2 Thes. 2. the man of syn sitteth in the temple of God with his whole order or rank of Apostates and the Temple of God consisteth not in that order and number of Apostates which is a thing most strange and furthest off And again the papacie is a poyson in the Church which must needs be vomitted out if it wil be preserved or ells the Church wil be extinguished by it if it suffer that poyson to prevayl and possess all the veyns of the body I answer true it is and I agree with them that the rank of Apostates is farr from being Gods temple wherupon I assume the whole popish church preists and people are a rank of Apostats because they worship the Beast who sheweth himself there for God where the Pope is acknowledged to be the Lion of the tribe of Iudah the root of David the Saviour and deliverer they worship Divils and Idols of silver and gold Rev. 9.20 and their beleef is in lyes 2 Thes. 2.11 12. therfore the whole popish Church being a ranck of Apostates is a Temple of Antichrist but not of Christ. Secondly to take that which they grant the papal Hierarchie ecclesiastical if it be no part of the body of the Church but an accident a poyson a gangrene an vlcer eating the body what shal we think of al the actions of that ecclesiastical hierarchie their ministration of sacraments their making of ministers and the whole Church administration by that rank of Apostates they cannot possibly be the actions of the body of the Church neyther of Christ. Can a scab or gangrene perform any action of a natural body or member And now what is become of their true baptisme and ordination of Ministers before pleaded for these wil be but as the operation of the poison or fretting of the gangrene for they that did them being the popish ecclesiastical hierarchie were no parts of the Church but accidents as the gangrene or pocks upon the whores body which consume life and grace but give none at al. Thirdly seing the popish ecclesiastical hierarchie which consisteth of Bishops Preists Ministers are the poison and botches in the body of the Church and no parts of the same how dooth God cal in that Church as before they reasoned For his ministerie is not among them as for his word the people have it not so much as to read and the service of their Gods is in a tongue that they understand not what now is the meanes of their caling Fourthly compare this with their former plea for the Eldership and Ministerie wheÌ„ they could not find the Church to be caled the body of Christ howse city or Kingdom unless it had officers c. Now for Rome they wil have it the body of Christ howse Temple of God ministring true baptisme c. and yet the ecclesiastical hierarchie are no parts or members but scabs on the body But the truth is these Aegyptian boyles the hierarchie ar the chiefest parts of the body of that Antichrist which in some respect may be likened to the Image that Nebuchadnezar saw Dan. 2.31 c. The Pope with his triple crown who is proclaymed for a Vice-God the inuincible Monarch of the Christian common wealth and vehement conserver of the popish omnipotencie he is the â—ead of Gold The Cardinals and prelats are next him as breast arms of silver the other bellyâ—God Clergie is the strong brazen paunch and the Lay people are as the legs and feet of yron and clay which cary and bear up the bulk and the unclean Spirit of Satan giveth life and effectual operation to this Beast For to be a member of this their body and Church the papists themselves profess that ther is not any inward vertue required so then ther is no need of the spirit of God to joyn these limms of the Beast togither But they proceed and say that On Gods behalf it is altogither a Church whersoever ther is found a company caled of God with his caling by the spirit and the holy scripture and the ministery of persons ordeyned for holy things and divine actions And a little after After this maner doo we esteem of the Church in which the papacy is God caleth her with his caling by his spirit and word and publik record of that holy mariage the scripture the ministerie and things holy actions which before we have breifly reckned up I answer if mens eyes did not dazel with looking on the bewtie of the harlot I marvel how they could so esteem of that Church which hath for her hierarchie as even now they confessed a rank of Apostates no members but ulcers of the body And are they now with another breath become an holy ministerie of God Most strange it is that men should publish their own esteemings without any word of God to warrant them But let us bring them to the trial They say God caleth her by his spirit and word but Paul sayth God shal send them strong delusion that they should beleev lyes 2 Thes. 2.11 and this we see verifyed by the manifold heresies idolatries blasphemies wherewith the whole body of that Church is poysoned They say God caleth her with his spirit the Apostle sayth strong is the Lord God which will condemn her Rev. 18 8. and with the spirit of his mouth he wil consume that lawless one 2. Thes. 2 8. And wheras they cal the scripture the publik record of that holy mariage between God her the scripture shewes no such mariage but dooth defye her as an harlot where is the record that Christ was ever maried to the Beast that came up from the bottomless pit If her having the book of holy scripture in an unknown tongue wickedly abused to mainteyn her whordoms and abominations subjected to the interpretation of her Lord God the Pope be a record of that holy mariage the Iewes which have Moses and the Prophets red and expounded in their mother tongue have
even in the Elders most solemn assemblies and Councils as Gr. Nazianzen in his time complayned being himself an Elder or Bishop I am minded sayth he to shun all assemblies of Bishops because I never saw a good event in any Council that did not rather increase then diminish our evils Their contention ambitioÌ„ passeth my speech Secondly they speak of their offer to bear with us in our difference of judgement if we would be content to walk peaceably with the Church in that our difference but this was refused I answer they might also if they had pleased have shewed the reasons of our refusal which more theÌ„ once we gave them as 1. Because we are willed to observ all things whatsoever Christ coÌ„manded his disciples Math. 28.20 and therfore his ordinances must not be left in practise and holden in judgement onely 2. Because touching the ministerie it is sayd a man can receiv nothing except it be given him from heaven Ioh. 3 27. now to the Ministers it is given to feed guide and govern the Church but not themselves to be the Church and to chalenge the power of the same in things perteyning to the kingdome of Christ. 3. Because touching the people it is sayd Stand fast in the libertie wherwith Christ hath made us free and be not intangled agayn with the yoke of bondage Gal. 5.1 but this was a part of the peoples Christian libertie recovered out of Antichristian bondage viz. to judge synners that are within 1. Cor. 5. and to decide publik causes with their ministers Act. 15.23 28. as parts of the same Church and body 1. Cor. 12.27.28 therfore to be held fast not onely in judgment but in practise 4. Because such giving place to the usurpation of the ministers was the mean of Antichrists beginning and climing to his preeminence which had the people resisted at first and practised the Gospel in the order set by Christ he could not so have prevayled And now also we should look that Antichrist being expelled doo not agayn set in his foot 5. Because if we holding otherweise in judgment should let the true practise of the Gospel goe posteritie after us being brought into bondage might justly blame and curse us that would not stand for the right of the people in that which we acknowledged to be their due These things considered we desired them then and stil doo to shew us how we could let goe our ancient practise until our judgment were by the word of God changed The 2. thing by us offred 2. We desired that then we might have a peaceable parting and to be two distinct congregations ech practising as they were perswaded yet nourishing brotherly love and unitie This also they would not agree to unless we would leav this citie Their answer is A peaceable parting we grant they desired in word but in deed stayed not with us but departed whiles we were considering whither it could lawfully be effected or not c. Our replie We desired it in word and deed instantly alleging the parting of Paul and Barnabas Act. 15.39 the doctrine of the Apostle Phil. 3.15.16 the practise of Abram and Lot though in a civil case parting to avoyd strife Gen. 13.8.9 the avoyding of publick reproch in the world c. But whatsoever we could say perswaded them not but they withstood us We stayed long and had we folowed their delayes we might have taried to this day and have had no other answer at their hands How long have they been considering about their Teachers ordination and stil it dependeth We are not ignorant of their pretenses to put off the thing they like not with a consideration But in deed we had their refusals often before we parted Which was much in them that had chaÌ„ged their former profession and innovated the practise that they should so refuse Had we been the men that had made such innovation and they continued as before we had surely been excommunicated long ere that time of our departing Of our busynes with the Church of Leyden it fel out after and is now to be spoken of in the third place The third thing 3. We procured though without their consent the help of the English church at Leyden who laboured our peace a way of peace by these theÌ„selves propounded and by the Church of Leyden and vs agreed to these after reversed and stood not unto unless we would goe dwel out of this citie And alâ—hough in the treatie of the agreement it was testified by the Elders of that Church that unless it were to the apparant undoing of us and of our families wee should not be dismissed agayn to dwell here yet because wee would not absolutely promise to leave this citie they would not stand to the agreement which themseves had made Their answers our replies Here they seek to wind out themselves from blame by sundry pretexts and long narrations I will breifly touch the principal being sory to weary the reader with our strifes 1. First for the thing by them propounded of mens going froÌ„ the one Church and Pastor to the other by us agreed unto it was not because we desired or liked such a course but earnestly desiring peace upoÌ„ any tollerable coÌ„ditions seing for the present no unlawfull thing in it we assented though the thing would have been much to our detriment For all of us must have made a journey to Leyden and back agayn with charge and trouble it being then mid-winter and such as could have had means of livelihood there must there have remayned which perhaps would have been the one half of us and so our congregation had been greatly diminished which was one mayn thing that our adverse brethren plotted as the events did manifest The Church at Leyden also as we must have suffred continually their our members to goe when they would into the practise of those errors with our opposite brethreÌ„ a thing which we wil carefully take heed of how ever we yeild to the like agayn 2. That the officers of the Church of Leyden did at the first coÌ„ceive that we all must remayn with them we cannot say Sure wee are we did not so conceiv but M. Iohnson so propounded it as we al even by his words understood it otherweise and himself being after pressed could not deny it 3. That the thing was agreed of and the second time by them absolutely concluded that three were sent with the message after the brethren of Leyden to signifie it as they write is true and past denyal 4. That after they made new motion of an other course is true also but they omitt the publik breaking of the former agreement wheÌ„ they signifying that forasmuch as they perceived our purpose was to return and live agayn in this citie they did playnly reverse it 5. The motion which they made of a double practise as it was disliked by the Church of Leyden as they signify so we