binding losing is also given vnto two or thre faithful ones wheresoever joyned together in the world The consequent of this argument only is doubtfull which may thus most manifestly be confirmed expoundeÌ„d when Christ is given then with Christ al things els are given Rom. 8.32 Christ I say with al his apurtenances when Christ the King is given to the faithful then Christs Kingdom is given vnto them then have they Christs powre to administer that Kingdom according to his direction when Christ the Preist is given to the faithful then Christs Sacrifice is given vnto them powre to administer al the efficacy of his Preisthood vnto the Saynts according to his direction when Christ the Prophett is given to the faythful then Christs Prophesy or the Holy doctryne of Salvation is giveÌ„ to the Church with powre for the dispensing therof according to his owne ordinance bâ— reason wherof the Saynts are said to have an anoynting or Chrisma from him that is Holy 1. Ioh. 2.20 therfor are called Christians Act. 11.26 being anoynted to be Kings 〈◊〉 Preâ—sts vnto God Revel 1.6 Prophets Act. 2.17.18 Seing then that by Christ the 〈◊〉 Prest Prophet who is given to the Saints the Saynts are made Kings Preists Pâ—â—phets therfor as Kings they have a ministerial powre given them of binding losing 〈◊〉 so â—orth of the rest The eight Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 compared with 1. Cor. 5.4.5 Mat. 6.12 Luk. 17.3 â—â—â—n these places of Scripture I collect this argument If one brother hath powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent privately to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent privately then a communion of faithful men have powre to retaine the sinnes of an impenitent member publiquely to remit the sinnes of one that is penitent publiquely But one brother hath powre given him by Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother privately impenitent and to remitt the sinnes of a brother privately penitent Ergo a communion of faithfull people have powre to retayne the sinnes of a member publiquely impenitent to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely penitent To the same sense the argument may be framed after this manner If witnesses admonishing a brother have powre given them by Christ to retaine the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse then a communioÌ„ of faithful men have powre to retain the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance But witnesses admonishing a brother have powre from Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse Ergo a communion of faithful men have powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance The premisses of both those arguments are evident out of Mathew Luke the conclusion is the Apostles direction to the Corinths The ninth Argument from Eph 5.30.32 1.22.23 Revel 21.2 22.17 From these Scriptures compared together I draw this argument The wife hath powre immediately from her husband the body hath powre immediately from the head The visible Church or a communion of faithful people are Christs spowse the wise of the lamb Christ mystical body Ergo the visible Church or a communion of faithful ones have Christs ministeriall powre immediately from him Againe As the body hath life sense motion powre from the head the hands feet have powre from the body So the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church as the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church But it is true in nature that the body hath life sence motion powre froÌ„ the head al the members have powre from the body Ergo the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church viz the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church By al which arguments put together it appeareth most evidently that Christs ministeriall powre of binding losing is given to the body of eyery true visible Church and that all the Officers of the Church have their powre and authority to administer derived vnto them from Christ through the body of the Church where they administer And thus have I proved evidently as I take it both that Christs ministerial powre commeth not by successive ordination by the hands of the ministery that it is immediately given to the body of the Church And heer for your further informacion Mr. Bern. I wish you to take notice that succession is a typical ordinance of the Old Testament therfor abolished by Christs comming For the Apostle wisheth vs to take heed of Iewish Fables Genealogies 1. Tim. 1 4. Tit. 1.14 bicause these genealogies were of necessity for the carnal ordinances of the old Testament but the Spiritual genealogie succession is for the new testament In the old Testament they had carnal parents a carnal seed carnal children carnal csrcumcision carnal commaundemeÌ„ts a carnal temple a carnal cittie a carnal preisthood a carnal Kingdom in the new Testament we have spiritual parents a spiritual seed which is the word spiritual children viz the faithful circumcision made without hands spiritual commaundements a spiritual temple an heavenly cittie spiritual Preists Kings a spiritual kingdom preisthood Therfor succession in the old Testament was carnal by genealogie if you therfor wil set vp a carnal succession in the new Testament by ordination for the ministery you must do it also 1. For the Church so fetch it from Rome 2. For the baptisme so fetch it from Rome 3. For the L. Supper so fetch it from Rome 4. For the Faith so fetch it from Rome 5. For excommunication so fetch it from Rome so forth of the rest this is to tie all Churches to the vnity succession of the chayre of Rome as in the old Testament al were tyed to the vnity succession of the temple at Ierusalem Herin therfor you see how you vanish away in your jmaginations by setting vp succession approving your self before you be aware a Iew a Papist an Antichristian this shal suffice for the matter of ordination or succession wherby it apeareth to be a Iewish Popish Antichristian devise In the next place let vs heer your nine reasons Mr Bernard which you bring to confute this our faith and most evident truth of God wher first in generall note that wee doe not deny but that the powre of the Church is for order sake committed into some particular persons hands who in the Churches name for the Churches good in the Churches presence are to handle al Church matters therfor whereas your 9-reasons are brought against popularity as you cal it you are to remeÌ„ber that Christs church in several respects is a Monarchie
his Ministeriall powre extraordinarily from heaven VVhy you confesse that powre of binding and losing was given before Christs ascension but now you would prove by this place Ephes 4. that the powre of binding losing is given after Christs assension and that these gifts and this powre are given together is not this to contradict your self hereby you see the weakenes of your reason For you must distinguish betwixt the powre of binding and losing which the Disciples had committed vnto them before Christs ascension and betwixt the gifts of the day of Pentecost But what are those gifts mentioned in that place of Ephes 4.8.11.12 and vnto whome are those gifts given I will declare it vnto you and so your mouth shal be â—â—opt These gifts which are said to be given to men are those foure sorts of Officers which the Apostle mentioneth vs 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers for the two last are one office These officers with their gifts are said to be given to men who are these men vnto whome these officers with their gifts are giveÌ„ are they not the Church is not the office of an Elder Pastor or Teacher the L. gift to the Church This place you see therefore is most pregnant against your opinion as may appeare thus That which is given by Christ to the Church is in the powre possession of the Church The officers offices of the Church are given to the Church Ergo the officers offices of the Church are in the powre possession of the Church Wherfor I say vnto you that the gifts of preaching administration of the Sacraments Governing are given vnto some meÌ„ but the office officers indued with these gifts are given vnto the Church who have powre to appoint them to their office who do receave both their office powre to administer in their office from the Church vnto whome the office powre of Christ is given primarily being the next Lord therof vnder Christ the Monarch And for your similie of the parts receaving their properties from God not from the body it is perversly applyed For this is the true vse and application of the similie as the head communicateth all the powre facultie which any part hath from it self to that part by the body so the head Christ communicated his powre to the parts and officers of the Church by the body of the Church which is Christ mysticall I confesse some parts of the body have some special properties and qualities which they receave not from the head as the Stomach hath the quality Chilificandi the liver Sangnificandi c. not from the head but the powre and faculty to vse the property it hath from the head So some members of the Church have special gifts given them of God but the powre of vsing those gifts they have from the head Christ by the meanes of the body which is the pipe that from the Fountaine conveigheth all powre Ecclesiastical to every officer The Fifth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the Scripture doth not lay the Government vppon the people nor reproveth them for sussering abuse of Holy things but vppon the governors civil Ecclesiastical Ezech. 22.26 1. Sam. 2 17. 1. King 13. Mat 23. Revel 2.1.8.12.18 3.17.14 I answer breefly from the Type to the truth concerning matters of the Old Testament Seing now the Saynts are all of them made Kings and Preists vnto God Revelat. 1.6 Or as the Apostle Peter saith Basileion hierateuma 1. Pet. 2.9 a Kingly Preisthood Therefore now in the New Testament the Saynts succeede in the place of the Kings and Preists of the Old Testament in Ecclesiasticall causses and as they were burdened with Government and reproof for profanation of holy things so are the Saynts the members of the visible Church now burdened with Government Ecclesiasticall and reproof for violating the Holy things committed to their custody fidelity therfor I reason from your owne confession against you thus If Kings Preists in the Old Testament were chardged with Government and blamed for violation of holy things Then in the New Testament the Saints who are Kings Preists are chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things But Kings Preistts in the old Testament were chardged with government blamed for violation of Holy things Therfor the Saints in the new Testament are chardged with government ecclesiastical blamed for violation of Holy things And thus you see Mr. Ber. how your owne weapon entreth into your owne bowels concerning the places of the Revelation that the Aungels of the seaven Churches were chardged with government blamed for abuse of the Holy things not the body of the Church I say herein you vtter foule vntruths For Chap. 1. vs. 4-7 the Apostle witeth to the 7. Churches of Asia wisheth grace peace to the Churches all the members of the Churches Chap. 2.11 at the end of every Epistle the Apostle maketh application of every Epistle to al that have eares to the particular Churches wher for I wonder at your shamelesse ignorance that should thus falsely belye the Scriptures abuse the reader To turne the point of this reason of yours also vppon your self I say thus If Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with gouernment abuse of holy things though the message be sent to the aungel to be published to the whole church then the whole churches are charged therwith viz with government violatioÌ„ of holy things But Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with the government abuse of Holy things though the message be sent to the Aungel of every Church to be published to the whole Church Therfor the whole Churches are chardged with the government violation of the holy things Thus much breefly concerning your fifth reason heer you make a digression to prove vnto vs that Matt. 18.17 Tell the Church must be expounded Tel the Governors For confirmation whereof you bring vs seaven reasons which I will handle in order Your first reason to prove that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this for that otherwise Christ could not be vnderstood for if he had brought in a strange course not heard of before nor then practised no man could vnderstand his meaning Seing therfor before then after the practise was to tel to the Elders or governors therfor tel to the Church is tel to the Governors or Elders A las for you Mr. Bern. this is borrowed stuffe yet stark naught For it is but froth chaffe what is the chaffe to the wheat Do not you think that the whole Gospell is a mystery which was kept secreat from the beginning of the world is not the visible Church of the new Testament with all the ordinances thereof the cheef principal part of the Gospel therfor seing this ordinance of telling the Church is a part of the Gospel it was
were not Apostles they Elected Deacons Act 6 Now Election is the very essence of a true Minister The Church admonisheth an Elder Col. 4.17 deposeth false Apostles Reve. 2.2 preacheth prayeth worshippeth wanting Elders Act. 13.22.23 whereas you say that Ministers only make Ministers I answer it is the ground of Succession which I have formerly overthrowne I say that the body of the Church hath in it al ministerial powre immediately from Christ your slender stuffe hath prevailed nothing against this truths of the Lords the vniversity may make a Doctor a Bachelor a Maister yet â—t not any such thing but a compound body having a charter from the King for that puâ—pose a corporation may make a Major Sherifes yet the corporation is not a Major or a Sheriffe So the Church may make Ministers yet the Church it self is not properly an Elder or Deacon or VVidow but a body politique having powre to produce such workes by verue of the charter which Christ hath given vnto it And thus Mr. Ber. I have done with you for this point but Mr. Ains steppeth vp with a new kind of Antichristianisme never heard of before he teacheth vs if we wil beleve him that Christs ruling powre is in the Eldership that the Pope Prelates are not Antichrists for taking into their hands the powre of the multitude but the powre of Christ Heer in the first place we must remember that the powre of Christ which we speak of is a ministerial delegated powre given to man that the question is who is the first subiect of this ministerial powre who receave it immediately from Christ I say the body of the Church is the first subject of it I say that whatsoever the Eldership hath it hath from Christ through the body of the Church by the Churches disposition this if you deny Mr. Ains which I think you do not I say you are therein departed from the faith The body of the Church having al her powre from Christ retaineth keepeth it intire to it self doth not so delegate it to any officers as that she leeseth it is deprived of it neither doth she delegate any powre to her officers but that which she formerly receaved from Christ her head husband Lord For Christ giveth not a double ministerial powre one immediately to the body of the Church which she hath keepeth another mediately to the Eldership by the Churches disposition which the church hath not at al but is only a conduit pipe to conveigh it to the Eldership if you hold such a matter declare it vnto vs out of the word of God we wil receave it when we see it in the meane tyme we hold that whatsoever the Elders have they have it from the Church by delegation that the Church hath it in ther owne hands receaved it from Christ by vertue of the covenant God maketh with it in Christ giving Christ for King Preist Prophet to the Church therfor the Church hath from Christ the head al powre al the members officers of the Church have al their powre from the body which they hold vse in the body not Seperated from the body The Elders as it were the hands are conjoyned to the Church as to the body The body of the Church is conjoyned to Christ the head The body hath no powre devided from the head the hands have no powre divided from the body So a company of men have no powre Seperated from Christ an Eldership hath no powre Seperated from the Church but as all powre floweth from the head to the body then to the haÌ„ds through the body which is first in the body before it come to the hands So al powre Ecclesiastical or ministeriall is derived from Christ to the Church then through the Church to the Elders which is first in the Church before it come to the Elders And as when the hands are cut of the body stil retaineth the powre intire though it waÌ„t hands the powre of the hands is sâ—â—â— in the body So when the Eldership is deposed the Church stil retaineth the powre of the Eldership though it want an Eldership as the hands can do nothing contrary vnto the liking of the whole body but the actions of the hands are by consent of the body So the Eldership can do nothing contrary to the liking of the Church but the actions of the Elders must be by consent of the Church as those hands are worthy to be cut of that rebel against the body wrong it or endaunger it So are these Elders worthy to be cut of from the Church that rebel against the Church wrong it or endaunger it This is the faith which I hold Mr. Ains if you hold any other faith it is not the faith of Christ but let vs see what your book wil aford vs. First you say Christs ruling powre which the papists say is in the pope we say not is in the body of the congregation the multitude but in Christ himself that the Pope is Antichrist not for taking into his hands the powre of the multitude but of Christ to rule governe the Church as head of the same confutat of Mr. Bern. pag. 175. You know Mr. Ains that the Pope doth not assume that powre which Christ as King hath in his owne hands reserved to himself but the pope claymeth to be a ministeriall head vnder Christ having a Ministerial powre given vnto him by succession from Peter although it cannot be denyed but that he doth many actions which are proper works of Christs powre Monarchical proper to himself yet that is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial headship not vnderstaÌ„ding how far that ministerial headship which he challengeth extendeth it is not his proper clayme to Christs office therfore properly the Pope is not Antichrist for challendging Christs Kingly powre proper to himself but for assuming Christs Ministerial powre delegated to his Church although I do not deny but the Pope enlargeth the delegated powre further then Christ hath prescribed in his word So that the Pope is Antichrist in two respects 1. For clayming that powre which Christ hath given to the body of the Church 2. For extending that ministerial powre beyond the compasse which Christ hath limited in the word Secondly you say Christs ruling powre which the Protestants say is in the Bbs. the Prelates we do not say is in the multitude but in Christ himself that the Bbs. are very Antichrists for assuming Spiritual jurisdiction aperteyning to Christ alone confut of Mr. Bern. pag. 175. Heer also you cannot be ignorant Mr. Ains that the Prelates do not challendg that Monarchical powre which is properly inherent in Christs person but renounce it vtterly as confidently as you do but they only challendg that Ministerial powre which Christ as they say hath delegated
dioceses Nay say the Presbyterians of England out of Mat. 18.17 The powre of binding losing is given to the Edership the poeple they are bound or losed by the Presbytery For by the Church they vnderstand the Presbytery Nay say we the powre of binding losing is given to the body of the Church even to two or thre faithful people joyned together in covenant this we prove evidently in this manner Vnto whome the covenant is given vnto them the powre of binding losing is given The covenant is given to the body of the Church that is to two or three faithful ones For God is their God they are his people Therfor the powre of binding losing is given to them Againe Vnto whom Christ is given for King vnto thē the powre of Christ the King is given as being his deputies lieftenants But Christ is given for King vnto the body of the Church even to two or three faithful people who are his Kingdome howse cittie Therfor vnto them is given his powre that is his powre to bind lose Finally Vnto whome the covenant Christ is given vnto them al the promises are given for al the promises are conteyned in the covenant in Christ as these places prove 2. Cor. 1.20 Psal 133.3 Act. 2.39 Gal. 3.14.15.16 the powre of binding losing is one of the promises is a part parcel of the covenant Mat. 16.19 Ioh. 20.23 Mat. 18 15-20 But the covenāt Christ al the promises are givē to the body of the church even to two or three faithful ones Therfor the powre of binding losing is given to them also But ther are certayne objections which must be answered in nomber three Ob. 1. One is that Christ speaketh only to Peter to his Apostles giveth the powre only to them therfor Mat. 16.19 Iohn 20.23 Mat. 18.17 For answer thus much The place Mat. 16. although it be directed to Peter personally yet it is intended vnto all the Disciples of Christ For vnto them is the powre given that have the saith and made the confession ther mentioned But the faith confession of faith is of al the Disciples spoken by Peter in behalf of them al therfor the powre is by promise given to al The place Ioh. 20.23 importeth plainly that Mary Magdalene divers other of the Disciples were present when Christ spake vnto them for they were assembled together in a howse the dore being shut it was the L. day not the Apostles only but the rest of the Disciples were assēbled in al likely-hood for the Sanctification of the L. day yea further Thomas was absent so the promise of binding losing could not be made to him at that present afterward it was not made to him so by consequent that one of the Ap. had not the powre givē him by ther reason which plead it to be given to the Apost only The place Mat. 18.17 doth not prove that this powre was given to the Presbyterie for that place importeth that it was given to the Church now the Eldership is not the Church but a part of the Church it must be proved that the word Church doth signifie the Eldership or els this place wil help nothing as I am sure cannot be showed out of the word besides the circumstances of the place teach that Christ intēdeth the powre of binding losing to be given to every brother for so he saith if thy brother sin lett him be vnto the take two or three witnesses where two or three c. I am in the midst of them Finally It cannot be denyed but admonition aperteyneth to every brother why should not excommunication For their is powre to bind lose in two or thre witnesses toward a brother why not powre to bind lose in the body of the Church if the whole Church be but two or three or some smal nomber Now for the vtter over throwing of this conceipt of the powre given to the Presbyterie only consider that the twelve were not yet Apostles only they were nominated to be Apostles they were invested in their office at the descending of the Holy Ghost on the day fo Pentecost which I prove vnto you evidently Eph. 4.8.11 when Christ ascended he gave gifts vnto men viz the gifts of Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers For Christ receaved his Kingdom when he ascended Luk. 19.12 For Christ obteyned a Kingdome by his death he receaved his Kingdome when he went into that fane country Christ by his sufferings entred into his glory So that Christs Kingdome in regard of the outward regiment ordinances thereof beganne at the day of Pentecost when the Apostles were endued with powre from on high Luk. 24.49 Act 1.8 it shal end at the day of judgment 1. Cor. 15.24.25 Seing therfor that they were not yet Apostles but only Disciples the powre given to them was given to them as Disciples not as Apostles therfor all Christs Disciples may justly in al ages challendg that powre of binding losing For a conclusion therfor in a word the commaundement of binding and losing is given to every brother go the promise powre of binding losing is givē to them also as the forsaid places do evince as the charter of a corporatiō is frō the King al the offices have powre from the corporation so the Church hath powre frō Christ the Eldership from the church as the body hath powre from the head the parts of the body have their powre from the body So the church which is Christs body hath powre from Christ the Eldership a part of the body hath powre from the body Ob. 2. A second objection is this that if the powre of binding losing be givē to the body of the Church then powre of preaching administring the seales of the covenant truth we confesse it the church being a corporation committeth powre to administer to such officers as Christ hath apointed to his church viz to the Elders or Bishops stil reserving powre to correct her officers by the same powre of binding losing in admonition excommunication the benefit wherof doth as wel perteyne to the Elders as other of the brethren except it be said the Elders are to be exempted from censures so to want those meanes of Salvation which the brethren have which is a pitiful condition alamentable priviledg Ob. 3. A third ebjection is that the benefit of binding losing of the word seales of the covenant is given to the church al the members but not the powre of thē wherto thus much may be answered viz that the Church viz two or thre faithful ones have as is said the covenant Christ the promises not only in vse but in title possession the faithful have as good powre title or interest
to the covenant Christ the promises as a freholder hath to his lands possessions Esa 9.6 Vnto vs a sonne is given the chruch is the spouse of Christ so hath powre to Christ the covenant promises the Church is the body of Christ the body hath a real possession title powre to the head all the helps therof For the faithful are flesh bones of Christ Eph. 5.30 these things are manifest to them that wil vnderstand if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant But it may be Mr. Bern. you wil say that powre to bind lose are no properties of the Church but only priviledges For shame say not so Surely this plea argueth that either you got litle Logick in the vniversity or that you have forgot it or if you remeÌ„ber it you either carelesly neglect it or wilfully pervert the vse of it to seduce your followers I pray you tel me in good sooth what difference is there betwixt a priviledg a propertie Is not a priviledge according to the notation of the word privata lex a private law wherin one person or state is interessed The King hath certaine previledges or prerogatives as to pardon condemned persons to dispence with his law a negative voice in parliament c. I would faigne know of you whither these be not properties such as the Kings Queenes of the nation only have title to no other but consider wel with your self what relation ther is betwixt a priviledg the person that is interressed in the priviledg Is it not the relation of the subject the adjunct A priviledg therfor is an adjunct to the priviledged person Now al adjuncts are either proper or common adjuncts but a priviledge is not a common adjunct as I am sure you wil confesse or els you want reason therfor it is a proper adjunct It it be a proper adjunct it is a propertie so your distinction is senselesse vnscholler like you may aswel say that pepper is hot in working cold in operation as to say that the true Church may be without her priviledges but not without her properties Therfor I doe heer before the L. attach you as a deceaver of the people in teaching thus contrary to al learning true vse of reason that the powre of the Lord Iesus Christ given to the church one part whereof consisteth in binding losing is only a priviledg not a propertie of the true Church that the true Church may want it It is as impossible for the true Church to want Christs powre as for a man to want reason Mr. Ber. answer now or els yeeld to the truth you cannot for shame denie the one of them Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the seaventh Section In this Section I write prove that the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principal members therof Mr. Bern. in his book intituled the Sep. Schisme pa. 88. calleth it the A.B.C. of Brownisme to hold That the powre of Christ that is authority to Preach to administer the Sacraments to exercise the censures of the Church belongeth to the whole Church yea to every one of them not the principal members therof Mr. Ains answering Mr. Ber pa. 174. Saith that Mr. Ber. may put this opinion if he please in the Criss-crosse-rew of Bernardisme he himself being the first that ever he heard to vtter such a position afterward pa. 175. 176. 177. 178. Expoundeth what that auncient Church whereof of he is teacher holdeth concerning it Wel Let vs handle these things largely to ful satisfaction herein I professe befor the Lord befor the whole world that if I do not prove evidently my assertion that the powre of binding losing is given to the whole multitude not to the principall members therof I wil acknowledg the Churches of England yea the Churches of Rome yea the Greek Churches also to have a true ministery to be true churches of Christ For if the ministerie the holy things with the ministerie come by succession from the Apostles handes through the churches of Rome the Grecians that ther are no ministers but such as are made by theÌ„ froÌ„ theÌ„ successively our whole cause of Seperation lyeth in the dust we must disclaime our Schisme which we have made our heresies which we hold but if it be proved that the true ministerie commeth not by succession from the churches of Rome or the Grecians that the holy things are not given to the ministery by sucessioÌ„ but are giveÌ„ first to the body of the church the faithful yea though they be but two or three that both the ministerie and all the powre that the ministerie hath doth â—â—ow from the Fountayne Christ Iesus through the body of the Church 〈◊〉 the Presbytery then is your Church ministerie false so are the Churches of the East West much more then we those Churches only which raise vp their Ministerie from the Election aprobation ordination of a faithful people are the true Church of Christ having the true Ministerie of Christ you with the rest of Gods people in Babylon must seperate joyne together walk in the Lords ordinances as we other true Churches doe or els woe be vnto you from the Lord Therfor in this particular I would supplicate the Kings Majestie my Soveragne Lord on earth the Lords of the Parliament The Gentlemen that susteyne the person of the commons in the nether howse al the learned men of the Land to confider to search out this point For it being throughly cleered may breed peace infinite good to the whole nation whereas it being suppressed choked darkened neglected draweth with it al the contentions and controversies amongst them that professe Christ in the whole earth For my part Mr. Ber. I wil endevour according to my poore hability to discover what I have conceaved and doe vndoubtedly beleeve from the Scriptures and doe make the beginning of my inquisition after this manner which I desire the gentle reader to weigh consider of with his best attention Christs visible church which is his Kingdom hath in it a spiritual powre and jurisdiction by the confession of al that professe Iesus Christ which powre is of two sortes 1. The powre of Christ himself who is the Lord King of his Church Mat. 28.18 and he is the Fountaine of powre being the head of the Church which is his body Eph. 1.22.23 For as the head is the Fountaine of life sense motion powre to the whole body as the Mr. of the howse is the original of al oeconomical powre So is Christ the original of al spiritual life sense motion powre to the Church which is his body family This is evident in regard of this powre which is inherent in Christ the church which
Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily but is given to the body of the Church The sixth Argument If Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery Then the office of the Deacons widowes are lost sith succession in them is interrupted lost for as in the old testament a Preist came of a Preist a Levite of a Levite so an Elder maketh an Elder a Deacon ordeyneth a Deacon a widow must ordeyne a widow But the office of the Deacon widow is not lost for none of Gods ordinances are perisht but may be had or els Gods truth mercy to his Church fayleth who hath said that he wil be with his Church to the end of the world Therfor Christs ministerial powre commeth not by succession to the Pope Bbs. or Presbytery primarily but is given to the body of the Church The seaventh Argument That doctryne which destroyeth it self is false The doctryne of succession viz that Christs ministerial powre commeth by succession to the pope Bbs. or Presbytery destroyeth it self Therfor the doctryne of succession is a false doctryne The minor I manifest thus If the papists say truly that al ecclesiastical powre floweth from Christ to the Clergie though the pope then why doth the college of Cardinalls make a pope by Election why doth not one pope make another pope before his death Therfor Election overthroweth the succession of the popes office For the pope cannot both give Christs Ministerial powre to the Clergie of Rome take the same ministerial powre from the Cardinals by Election but when the pope is dead then is Christs ministerial powre dead also in the popes person thus doth successioÌ„ overthrow it self in the pope by consequent in the rest For Christs ministerial powre being once interrupted in the pope can never be recovred againe but is vtterly lost so the Church is abolished For if the presbytery be lost the Church is lost if the bbs be lost the presbytery is lost if the pope be lost the bbs be lost if the pope be dead the pope is lost if the pope be lost Christs ministerial powre is lost for if it be said that the pope hath his powre by Election from the Cardinals theÌ„ succession is destroyed so you may see evidently that succession destroyeth it self seing Election must needes be interposed Therfor indeed ther is no true succession but that of the old Testament viz by descent genealogie this succession which is pleaded for by ordination of precedent presbytery bbs pope is mans invention destroyeth it self therfor is a meer Antichristian devise But heer certayne objections must be answered for the further manifestation of the matter of succession for sactisfaction therein The first Objection Alchough the Ministeriall powre of Christ be not given to the pope so perisheth not with him yet it is given to the bbs who are the Successors of the Apostles in that Ministeriall powre and in the dispensation of it to the Ministerie and Church Seing therefore that ther is a certayne and vndoubted Succession of bbs from the Apostles dayes hetherto one ordeyning another successively therefore though succession be interrupted in the Pope whose ministerial heads hip we renounce yet it is continued in the Bbs. who are the Apostles successors in dispensing this ministerial powâ—e to the ministerie Churches Answer to the first Objection This objection dependeth vppon an vncertanity viz That ther hath been a succession of Bbs. one ordeyning another successively froÌ„ Peter Paul Iames through the Church of Rome the Greekes therfor I answer that except they can shew the courte rowles that I may so speak of the vndoubted successive ordination from Peter Paul Iames c. I shal say vnto al the Bbs. of England as Nechemjah said to the Preists that could not shew ther succession from Aaron by Genealogie Nehem. 7 64.65 Bicause their successive ordination is not found they shal be put from their Bishopricks they shal not administer in the Bbs. office til their arise vp one as with Vrim Thummim to divine vnto vs the truth of this matter For we wil not beleeve the records of the Church of Rome who also are defective in this particular for though they have the succession of Popes yet not of other Bbs. Further the vanity of this objection appeareth in this that hereby they are vrged for the justifying of this Antichristian devise of succession by ordination to go to the throne of Antichrist the popedome to fetch their ministerie thence as if the true ministerie off Christ could be in the false Church of Antichrist hereby also they do acknowledg Rome to be the true Church their Sacrificing Preisthood a true Ministerie orders a true Sacrament the Eucharist a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick dead prayers for the dead a thousand such abhominations which are necessary dependances therevppon They must also acknowledg themselves Schismatiques from the Church of Rome are never able to answer the popish bookes the petitions of the Papists to the King who object these and the like things against them The Second Objection Although the pope Bbs have not Christs ministerial powre given to them by succession yet the presbytery may have that powre by delegation from Christ when their shal arise a company of true faithful teachers who standing out against the popedome prelacy al the abhominations therof also renouncing al the corruptions of their ordination refining both the doctryne of faith the true calling of ministers from the drosse of Antichristianisme doe yet notwithstanding retayne the truth which they in the seate of Antichrist had as in the faith so in the ministery For Antichrist had not â—â—â—erly abolished but only corrupted the Lords ordinances Answer to the second Objection This objection dependeth vppon the former grounds namely that the Church of Rome is a true Church though corrupt having a true ministerie though corrupt c. of the rest For otherwise how can they plead ther ministery to be true from the Bbs. except they do acknowledg also the Bbs Ministery to be true receaved froÌ„ the Popedome the popish ministerie to be true for otherwise they must maintaine that a true ministerie commeth from a false ministerie which is as impossible as to bring light out of darknes So that this Objection is also answered in the former already needeth no further answer yet neverthelesse I say vnto the point that al the refining of the world can not bring a true ministery out of a Sacrificing Preisthood Or a true presbytery out of a false Antichristian prelacy For as it was impossible for the preists of the Old Testament to ordeyne true Ministers of the New Testament So much more is it impossible for the false popish Sacrificing preisthood to ordeyne true ministers of Christs true Church For the Sacrificing
an Aristocraty a Democratie In respect of Christ the King it is a Monarchy of the Eldership an Aristocratie of the brethren joyntly a Democratie or Popular government For Christ the King he ruleth by his owne lawes Officers The body of the Church the spowse of Christ ruleth as the wise vnder the husband according to the wil appointment of her husband The Elders rule as the stewards of Christ the King of the church which is the wise or spowse of the King Now as it is vnreasonable to appoint the steward or Servant of the King either over the King himself or over the Queen who is the Kings wife So is it Antichristian to place the Elders as Rulers over the whole body of the Church although every particular person and cause is subject to be ordered by that authority which the Church joyntly receaved from Christ and delegateth to them wee say therefore that the body of the Church hath all powre immediately from Christ and the Elders have al their powre from the body of the Church which powre of the Eldership is not exercized nor can not be vsed over or against the whole body of the Church for that is an Antichristian vsurpation but only it is exercised over and against particular persons and disorders arising in the Church the Eldership herein dealing for the body in the publique workes thereof breefly therefore to answer in generall to all your nine reasons vsed against popularity wee dispute not whither the Elders must rule or not but wee dispute who have the negative voice in their hands or who have the determining powre in them or who give the definitive sentence in al matters VVee say that the definitive sentence the determining powre the negative voice is in the body of the church not in the Elders yet we say the Elders are to lead governe al persons causes of the Church but to lead governe contrary to the definition voice of the body that we deny that we say is Antichristian Your first reason Mr. Bernard is that popularity is contrary to Gods order vnder the law and before the law vnder the law the powre of Governing was in the Levites befor the law it was in the first borne this governing powre was not receaved from the people vnder the law but from the Lord by Moses but the people only approved the Lords appointment I answer The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did type two things 1. That Priviledg and prerogative which Christ Iesus hath who is the first borne having the preeminence in all things Colos 1.18.1 Cor. 15.20 Revel 1.5 For Christ is the first most noble in the Church even the head Fountayne of al heavenly grace excellency 2. The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did shadow out the church Exod. 4.22.23 who is the first borne of al the men of the earth most deere and pretious to the Lord So that this reason of yours may thus be retorted vppon your selsf If the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the preheminence then Christ the visible Church which were shadowed out by the first borne by the Levites have the preminence powre in the new Testament But the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the powre preheminence by your owne confession Ergo Christ the visible church from Christ shadowed out by the first borne the Levites have the powre preheminence in the new Testament Remember for this particular that the first borne the first Fruites the Preists Levites Rings Princes of Iudah did al type forth vnto vs in the new testamēt the visible church the Saints next vnder Christ who is the head to the body of the Church as these scriptures do manifestly declare 1. Pet. 2.5 9. Revel 1.5 6. Col. 1.18 1. Cor. 15.20 The second of your nine reasons against popularity is that it is without warrant in the Apostles tyme The Apostles alwayes begune continued and composed church matters the body of the congregation were only made acquaynted with matters aliberty granted them to chose officers but they did never make any themselves nor attēpted any thing of themselves This argument Mr. Bern. is partly vntrue partly against your self Vntrue it is thus far forth that you say the body of the congregation never attempted any thing without Elders For I demaund of you what did the 120. persons in the first of the acts did they not chuse an Apostle into office ordeyne him but they had no Elders as yet for the holy Ghost was not come downe vppon them so the◠were no Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers Eph. 4.8.11 did not the Churches of Lystra Iconium Antiochia think you worship God admonish excommunicate during the tyme of the Apostles absence from them when as yet they had no Elders Act. 14 21-23 did not the Churches in Creta think you worship God governe in the absence of the Apostles Titus when as yet Elders were not appointed Tit. 1 5. you cannot deny that the Churches were established before they had officers if you do the Apostle saith that they that are to be chosen Elders must not be newly planted into the faith 1. Tim. 3.6 so by consequent from the tyme of establishing Churches til Election of officers ther must needes be a space of tyme for tryal of mens gifts conversation constancy in the faith during which tyme the Apostles being absent from the Churches I make no doubt but they did worship God performe the other parts of their Spiritual communion it they did so then I say look how many Churches were established by the Apostles So many examples ther are of the congregation attempting every thing almost without Elders so the Second reason of yours conteyneth so many vntruths as ther were Churches planted by the Apostles in the Acts who did not the first day of their planting institute their Elderships but some certayne competent space of tyme afterward wherin ther might be sufficient tryal knowledg of mens gifts qualifications fit for office this may suffice for your vntruths Now further your reason is against your self in this particular wherein you yeeld the cause that the body of the congregation had a liberty to chose their officers whence I reason thus against you They that have liberty to chose their owne officers to worship God publiquely before they have officers they have al the rest of Christs powre ministerial befor they have officers But the body of every congregation hath powre to worship God publiquely as you see have liberty to chose their owne officers as you confesse yet want Elders Ergo the body of every congregation hath al the rest of Christs ministerial powre before they have officers I say the body of
to the Apostles their Successors the L.Bbs. neither can you with any good conscience say that they clayme Christs Kingly powre but only they are Antichrists as the Pope is for two causes 1. For clayming that powre Ministeriall which Christ hath given to the body of the Church 2. For enlarging that ministerial powre beyond that compasse which Christ in his word hath determined Thirdly you say Neither that ruling powre of Christ which the Puritanes say is in the presbytery do we say is in the multitude For we acknowledg Christ to have ordeyned a presbytery or Eldership that in every Church for to teach rule them by his owne word lawes vnto whome al the multitude the members the Saints ought to obey submit themselves as the Scriptures teach confut of Mr. Bern. pag. 176. VVee say Christs ruling powre is originally fundamentally in the body of the Church the multitude we acknowledg further that the Elders receave by delegation powre from the body of the Church which powre ministerial in the hands of the Elders is not so large as that which is in the body but it is rather a leading powre then a ruling powre neither are the Elders in al the new testament to my knowledg called Rulers archontes but overseers leaders Elders prohistamenoi wherby the holy Ghost would teach that their powre is not to rule but to leade direct I do therefore vtterly disclaime this your error Mr. Ains as one part of Antichristianisme in your Church but you had need expound it wel for the satisfaction of the brethren of the Seperation least you here in destroy your constitution before you be aware VVhat we hold concerning the Presbytery I have delivered partly in that which before I have written in answer to Mr. Bern. partly in that which I lately published concerning the differences of the Churches of the Seperation in the second part the first Section Chap. 5. 6. wherfor if you hold that Lordly vsurped Antichristian powre of your Eldership to be that ruling powre which the word of God warranteth it shal be your part to justifie it to rebuke al that gainst and it for herein wee vtterly disclayme your judgment practise we maintaine that the powre of the Eldership is a leading directing overseeing powre ministery or service both in the Kingdom Preisthood of the Church that the negative voice the last definitive determining sentence is in the body of the Church wherto the Eldership is bound to yeeld that the Church may do any lawful act without the Elders but the Elders can do nothing without the approbation of the body or contrary to the body The eighth Section In the next place followeth your second position which is this in your copie In holding that one sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in not reformed by a true constituted Church doth so pollute it that none may communicate with it in the holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawful conviction you say is error I say it is the most comfortable holy truth wee hold in our walking one with another in communion of Gods ordinances This truth ariseth from the former ground that al the members of the Church have powre to the censures of admonition excommunication to bind lose For observe I pray you that every brother is bound to admonish his brother for a fault he observeth in him if he reforme not he must take one or two witnesses admonish him if he reforme not yet he must bring the matter before the Church suppose the Church consist of 12. persons as at Ephesus Act. 19.7 The matter being before the Church the eleven deale with the twelvth discover his sin convince it to his conscience he refuseth to â—eer them but despiseth the admonitions I say if they retaine him stil in communion they consent to his sinne For as the civill Magistrate in pardoning willfull murther consenteth to it bicause the murtherer should die Even so the Church suffering the vnrepentaunt persone among them consent to his sinne and are polluted with it and consent to all the profanation and violation of the Holy things committed by that vnrepentaÌ„t person For God hath commaunded the church to watch over their brethren if they do not they hate their brother in suffering sinne to rest vppon him God hath commaunded that no vncleane person should medle with the Holy things if they doe they profane polute the Holy things offering violence to the Lords ordinances But it may be you wil say that by this meanes we assume to our selves a kind of perfection puritie in that we wil have no sinners among vs I answer that you must distinguish betwixt our persons our communion we confesse our persons severally every one of vs to be subject to sinne that we doe sinne dayly bicause of our sinning nature the Lord hath appointed the ordinances of the visible Church as helps meanes to subdue this sinning nature of ours especially these ordinances of admonition excommunication which are to be vsed administred vppon al by al as occasion is offered Now this is the perfection puritie of our communion that we suffer no vnrepented sinne no vnrepentant sinner among vs but either we cast out the sinne by repentance or the sinner vnrepentant by excommunication that our coÌ„munion may be pure holy the church without spot or wrinckle that we may be a new lump dayly vnleavened the leaven being purged out of vs continually oh Mr. Ber. if you knew but the comfort powre of the L. ordinances of admonition excommunication as we do blessed be our good God in some measure that growth reformation which is in some of vs thereby you would be so wonderfully ravished with the powre of Gods ordinances that you would acknowledg the Church to be terrible as an armie with banners yet amyable lovely comely beauteful in so much as Christ himself saith that the love of the church is faire that she woundeth his hart with one of her eyes in regard of the beautyful holy communion which is dayly maintayned in her by vertue of the censures but your confused assemblies al the members of them not only omit but reject yea oppose al these holy ordinances which Christ hath given to his Church therby you proclaime to all the world that you are of Belial that is without the yoke of Christs ordinances you cast away from you these cordes bandes wherwith wee are bound one to another knit faster faster vnto Christ our head therfor you living thus without the yoke out of the Lords Holy order having broken these bandes cast the cordes froÌ„ you mingling your selves vnto joyning with al manner of profane persons that violate al Gods ordinances how can we have any
themselves from brethren walking inordinately from persons excommunicate from converteous persons al other that either teach false doctrine or deny the powre of Godlines indeed though inword they professe the same 2. Tim. 3.5 Tit. 1.16 2. Thes 3.6 1. Cor. 5.11 The third Argument from Mat. 28.19.20 Act. 19.4.5 10.48 Mat. 18.20 The true Churches of the Apostolique institution were by baptisme gathered into the covenant or new Testament of Christ The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not by their baptisme conunited into the New Testament of Christ but only into the constitution ministery worship government into that faith doctrine which is by law established in the Land Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the Apostolique institution The ground of this argument is this that the Apostles baprized men in definitely into the whole new Testament of Christ al the ordinances thereof which was not stinted or limited at the pleasure of men vnder certaine canons injunctions articles or Ecclesiastical constitutions but was large even as large as the whole word of truth then inspired or written by the Apostles Prophets whereas the assemblies of England do neither them selves professe the true saith of Christ conteyned in the new Testament their faith being stinted limited vnder certaine devised articles convocatiō howse Synodical decrees or constitutions wherevnto al the ministers of the lād are bound to Subscribe which is the faith of the whole nation neither therfor do they baptise into the new Testament of Christ indefinitely simply but respectively definitely into that faith doctrine which is taught in their stinted book of articles wherto they subscribe which they beleeve teach wherof the body of that Church is wherin wherto they are by baptisme admitted receaved their faith therfor being devised stinted or false therfore their baptisme false therfor their covenant false therfor the forme of their Church false therfor the Church it self a false Church For how can that be a true Church which hath a false faith covenant forme The fourth argument from Mat. 18 18-20 Marc. 13.34 Ioh. 20.23 Mat. 16.19 These places other like Scriptures afoard an argument which may be framed after this manner The true Churches of the Apostolique institution had Christs powre ministerial in the body of the Church The Ecclesiastical assemblies of England have not Christs ministerial powre residing in the body of the Church Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the primitive Apostolique institution The Major or first part of this Argument hath been largely proved in the seaventh Section and in the Paralleles Censures Observations therto aperteyning whither the Reader is to be referred where this particular is handled affirmatively and negatively The Minor or second part of the argument is evident in it self For the powre Ecclesiastical of the assemblies is resident in the hands of certaine Archb. Lordb. Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries Officials and other Ecclesiastical Superintendents which have powre over thousands or hundreths of Parish Ecclesiastical assemblies and the Ministers in them which have powre Ecclesiastical one over another to suspend excommunicate and absolve them according to their canons decrees and decretals the Prelate in his diocese or jurisdiction having absolute powre to interdict one or more Parish Churches from having any prayers or Service they have no powre to come into the Parish Church or Temple to worship whiles the interdiction with the Bbs. seale cleaveth vppon the Church dore c. divers particulars of like nature which doe evidently declare that the parish assemblies have no powre at all of themselves but are meerly and wholly subject and in bondage to the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and subordination of Clergie-men having Superintendency Superiority jurisdiction over them as their proper Spirituall LL. to Whome they dayly yeeld Spirituall homage and Subjection in their oaths off Canonicall obedience and actions of like Servitude The fifth Argument from 1. Timoth. 2.5 Heb. 9.15 Gal. 3.15.16 Iohn 17.9 These places of holy Scripture other of like nature may asoard an argument which may thus be framed The true Church of the primitive institution Apostolical had Christ Iesus for their mediator that is for their King Preist Prophet The assemblies Ecclesiastical of Englād have not Iesus Christ for their Mediator that is their King Preist Prophet Ergo the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the primitive institution Apostolical The Minor or second part of the Argument may be confirmed by divers particulars as 1. Christ is not their King seing he onely ruleth by his owne Lawes and Officers and not by Antichristian Lords and Lawes such as are their Prelates and the Officers Courts and Canons 2. Christ is not their preist to ratifie vnto them by his blood that ordinance of Church Ministery VVorship and Government which they retaine among them which is not Christs Testament but the Testament of Antichrist the vtter enemy of Christ neither doth he prostitute the blood of his Testament to establish such a worship as their service book affoardeth or such a Ministery as their Clergie is from the ArchP to the ParishP or such a Government as their Ecclesiasticall Hircarchy or such a people for his body as are compounded of the Serpents seed a viperous brood of wicked men of all sorts 3. Christ is not their Prophett to teach them by the false Prophetts the instruments of Antichrist which dayly by their doctrine set vp Antichrists Officers Lawes oppugne the true New Testament of Christ in the true constitution Ministerie VVorship Government taught in his word Seing therfor Christ is not their King Preist Prophet how is he their Mediator Seing his mediation consisteth not in the execution dispensation of these their offices of King Preist Prophet The sixth Argument from Eph. 1.22.23 1. Cor. 12.27.12 Gal. 3.16 Eph. 5.23 From these places of Scripture compared together truly expounded may an argument be drawne framed thus The true Church of the Apostolique primitive institution hath Christ for the head and is a true body vnto the true head Christ truly vnited by the Spiritt of Christ The ecclesiastical assemblies of Englād are not a true body vnto Christ the true head truly vnited by the Spirit of Christ Ergo the ecclesiastical assemblies of England are not the true Churches of the primitive Apostolique institution The Minor or second part of the Argument may thus be confirmed in the three parts therof 1. Christ is not their true head seing they deny all his offices though they hold the doctryne of his nature and persons soundly as is plainly proved before in the fifth Argument 2. the assemblies as they stand in confusion with all the vngodly and vitious persons of the Land vnder the Antichristian Lords and Lawes Ecclesiasticall can not be a true body vnto Christ but
is a monstrous body like vnto the body of Nebuchadnetzars image Daniel 2.32 3. this monstrous body cannot be vnited to the true head Christ by his Spirit but the people of the assemblies being for the most part the seed of the Serpent must needes be knit together and vnto their head Antichrist by the Spirit of Antichrist the Spirit of Sathan All this I speak of their visible communion and of that politique body Ecclesiasticall which is called their Church For otherwise I doe acknowledg vnfeynedly and doe vndoubtedly beleeve that the Lord hath his thousands among them even a remnant according to the Election of grace Thus have I proved vnto you Mr. Bernard positively that the Ecclesiastical assemblies of England in their present constitution and walking are not the true churches of the primitive Apostolique institutioÌ„ but are in their outward visible politique subsistence the churches of Antichrist framed after the shape of the popish asseÌ„blies though much refined from the venemous drosse of popery now in the second place it remayneth that I deale anaskeuasticos with you answering those things which you alledg for your Churches to prove them true The great maine pillar of your building is this that seing your Church hath not a false head false matter false forme false properties therefore it is not a false but a true Church To these 4. particulars I answer distinctly First you have a false head in that you worship God in a fantastical Christ of your owne devising in that you shape him a Kingdom Preisthood Prophesy of your owne invention making him a mediator intercestor to al the profane people of the Land causing him to offer vp other worship worshippers to his Father then he hath taught in his new Testament purchased by his blood by this meanes dealing with Christ as somtyme the Iewes did putting a reed in his hand a crowne of thornes vppon his head kneeling downe vnto him as to a King bidding him prophecy yet smite him vppon the face spit at him presently crucify him For whereas you frame him a Kingdom Subjects Officers Lawes a government after your owne invention or rather out of the Propes decretals decrees hereby you seem to make him a King but indeed you Crucifye him againe and tread vnder foote the blood of the Testament which he hath purchased established at so high a rate Secondly your church hath a false matter For seing you do al this indignity to Christ the head of his true Church do you think that he wil entertaine you for the true matter of his Church the true subjects of his Kingdom the true members of his body the faithful Servants of his howse his chast true welbeloved Spowse wife either you must repent reforme your selves of al that vild indignity which you offer vnto Christ or els he wil never receave you for the matter of his Church the Subjects of his Kingdom the members of his body the Servants of his howse his espowsed wife For Christ wil not take a wife of fornication children of fornication Hos 1. he wil not have the Servants of Antichrist to be his howsehold Servants Mat. 6.24 nor wil he take the members of an harlot make them the members of Christ 1. Cor. 6.15 the Subjects of his vtter enemy Antichrist cannot possibly be the true faithful Subjects of Christs Kingdom Luk. 19.27 But in the pa. 111-116 of your book you make a distinction of matter as No matter True matter False matter they are no matter of a church say you which do not professe Christ as Iewes Turks Pagans They are true matter that professe Christ to be the Sonne of God the Sonne of Mary the only Saviour of man False matter say you is contrary to the true Further this true matter of the Church you say is good bad good matter you say as it seemeth to me is men walking vprightly in this profession of Christ bad matter are men walking wickedly this you illustrate by the matter of mariage for she may be a true wife though a bad one also by the similitude of subjects to a King who may be true though bad ones breaking his lawes a true tradesman though vnskilful in his professioÌ„ for your selves you say you are true matter of Christs church though not good matter bicause you professe Christ truly as is said before wel Mr. Ber. I yeeld the general distinction of matter but I deny the particular application of it to your selves I say you are false mater how therfor do you prove vnto vs that you are â—â—ue matter by 4. reasons wherof the first is for that you beleving this forsaid truth you beleeve the summe of the gospel I deny it vtterly the summe of the gospel is this that Iesus Christ the Sonne of God the Sonne of Mary is the only King Preist Prophet of his Church governing Sacrificing making intercession prophecying after that holy manner according to those rules which he hath prescribed in his Testament Now to beleeve truly concerning the person of Christ to beleeve falsely concerning his office as you doe is not to beleeve the whole gospel but only a peece of it So that this is the doctrine alone by which the Apostles did gather a people to make them a Church disciples of Christ the profession herof admitted men as true matter of a Church this only differenceth the true Church from Iewes Turkes Pagans Papists al other Antichristians Heretiques viz Iesus Christ God and man King Preist Prophet mediator of his owne Testament Therfor your second third fourth reasons fal flat to the ground the first being vnderminded as you see but ther is one thing that I wonder at that you should hold the Papists to be false matter of a Church for holding justification by workes therby denying Christs Preisthood hold your selves to be true matter of the Church denying Christs Kingdom in the true frame ministery worship government of his Church what is not Christs Kingdom as pretious as his Preisthood is it not as horrible impiety to deny Christs Kingdom the ordinances therof as to deny his Preisthood the vertue therof or is Christs Preisthood more fundamental then his Kingdom or justification by workes more pernitious then to deny Christ to raigne as King to refuse his regiment wel if the papists be false matter by your owne confession for the one you must needes also be false matter for the other For I am confident that Christs Kingdom is as pretious an office as his Preisthood even as the Kingdom in the old Testament was as excellent as the Preisthood now Mr. Bern. what is become of the Church seing your matter is false as you may perceave by this description what shall your similies of a bad wife a bad subject of a bad artificer help you