theÌ„ before himself as in giving his life a ransome for many in being as he that serveth at the table wherat his disciples sate in which respect he expressly teacheth theÌ„ to be greater theÌ„ himself and in washing their feet as they sate at supper so was not his order an ord of service in it self but of headship and kingship which if our Ch â—officers could prove their order to be we would then acknowledge it in deed superiour to the order of saynts But their order being merely an order of servaÌ„ts me thinks coÌ„mon sense should serve to judge the same inferiour to the order of the Church whose servants under Christ they are I ad in my book pag. 225. that the officers being by their order servants the Church may in that relation be called a Lord not for the governing of them in the outward policie and affaires in the church as he injuriously collects but as they are for the Churches use and service which he conceals though I expresly so note in the same place as also that the same Church-servants are Church-governours the gogernment of the Church being a mere service And for the thing If the officers be to be called servants to the Church what is the Church to be called to the officers A servant is a relative and must have a correlative and I would know by what name he would call it if not by the name of Lord Mayster Mistress or the like And if he deny this he takes away from men the use of coÌ„mon reason and understaÌ„ding Let the servants know yea though stewards as are the Church-officers add so betrusted with the goverment in a special maÌ„ner that the wife of their Lord and Mayster is a degree above theÌ„ and so to be acknowledged by them least they not onely wrong her but provoke him to wrath Lastly because he imputes new doctrine to me I wil note down the doctrine of some few others both more ancient and more worthy of respect then my self Musculus in his CoÌ„mentaries vpon 1. Cor. 3 22 23 24. Let no man glorie in men for all are yours c. sayth thus Is it not absurd that the greater to wit the Church should glory in the less to wit the officers the Lord or mayster in the servant And in this sense sayth he further the perversnes of the false Apostles is noted who when they wer servants of the Church did make of a Mistress or dame a servant and of servants Lords And agayn the foolishnes of the Church is taxed who when they were Lords of their Ministers gloried in their servants Bullinger upon the same place vers 21. sayth thus So great is the dignity of them that beleev that God hath subjected all things unto theÌ„ It is therfore great folly if the Lord of thinges subject himself to the things c. Pareus professor of Heidelberg in his CoÌ„mentaries upon the same scripture reproving the churches glorying in Paul Câ—phas c. and quoting 2 Cor. 4.5 we preach not our selves but Christ Iesus the Lord and our selves your servants for Iesus sake sayth thus It is not meet that the Lord should glorie in his servant wee are your servants Therefore c. All these and many moe call the Church expresly a Lord in the very same relation with me and yet I suppose never man chalenged them for making an Idol of it or setting up a Lordly government neyther would Mr. Iohnson me had he not been immoderately jealous for the officers dignity Iohn Robinson The 2 Article objected We professed heretofore that Christ gave the power of receiving in cutting off to the whole body togither of every Christian congregation not to any one or more members sequestred from the whole c. Now we have been taught that in cases of question and controversie the greater part of the people are the Church though al the Elders and other brethren be against them c. and so have the power to receiv in cut off c. I answer ther is no contradiction in these things we hold stil in all points according to the article alleged neyther ever taught we the people onely to be the Church sequestred from their officers but the officers governing and the people governed to be the Church which hath the power to use in holy order But if these officers fal into heresie or wickednes themselves or to abett wickednes in others and wil not be reclaymed by any holy means the Church can use then may they by the Church which chose them be deposed as unworthy of their places yea and excommunicated and so al other impenitent sinners and this by the voices of the most of the congregation if al consent not aswel as members or officers are received in by the voices of the most if some doo dissent for ther is one power for them both And these our opposites must eyther manifest that if one or 2 officers or members doe dissent in a controversie ther is a sequestration of them from the whole and the Church then hath not the power of Christ to receav in and cutt off or els al may see that this is a colourable accusation of theirs no contradiction of ours For if the consent of al every one be not necessaryly to be had they dissenting through their ignorance frowardnes or the like theÌ„ the most voices must prevayl But how farr their new doctrine that the Elders are the Church is both from our former professioÌ„ and from equitie I have before shewed The 3 Article We wrote heretofore that the Elders have the reyns of government coÌ„mitted to them now we are taught that the governmeÌ„t of the church is not Aristocratical yea the people as Kings have the power c. I answer we differ not from our former profession but they deceiv the reader by turning government into power which we in our publik profession heretofore distinguished and so doo still giving the government of the whole Church and all the actions of it unto the officers the power to the whole body and so to the officers with the people as joyntly Kings and Preists of which things we have spoken before We never held the Church to be a mere Aristocratie as they speak intending that the cratos or power should be in the hands of a few neyther shal these men ever prove it And in the book which they cite in the very same place though they dissemble it we shew the Church not the Elders onely to have Christs power to judge al within the same and that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to the whole Church as the Protestants have heretofore testified against the Papists That these men doo but feign contradiction and would blind the reader by confounding the Churches power and goverment as one The 4. article Wee professed hertofore that no sacraments should be
implieth authority that it is proportionably answerable to the taking away by death c that it is a special use of the keyes given by Christ to the Apostles that the force herof is such as therby a man is not onely cast out of that particular Church wherof he was a member but is cutt off excluded from all churches vpon earth as on the contrary by baptisme wee are entred into communion with al Churches of Christ in the world By these things compared togither we may observ 1. that the church elders may by their sole authoritie give judiciarie sentence that a man shal be excommunicated answerable to the Magistrates in Israel that gave sentence a man should be put to death 2. That the Elders may also by authoritie in particular deliver a man to Satan by the power of Christ which is proportionably answerable to the taking away by death which in Israel themselves grant was to be doon by the hands of the people Thus doo the Elders now chalenge by proportion in the Church that which belonged both to Magistrates and people in the cōmon wealth But because they fear the people they shape them this deceitful proportion that their avoyding the excommunicate person is the executing or putting in execution as they ambiguously speak of the sentence answerable to the peoples stoning of a malefactor in Israel how fitly let al that have understanding judge For whether the people avoid him or not the man is judged and delivered to Satan and so cut off from the church as on the contrary when one is baptised by the minister whether the people keep company with him or not he is made a member of the church and as a man beheaded in Israel was surely dead whether the people refreyned from touching him or no. 2. Agayn they give no more to the people of that Church wherof he is a member then to the people of all other churches that are bound to avoid the excōmunicated person as wel as they 3. Yea they give hereby their people no more power then the Pope dooth to his marked servants for he also wil have the people avoyd such as he dooth excōmunicate and if this be the boasted right and libertie of the people they had as much in the greatest bondage of poperie as now when they are caried thus blindfold by propertions But they tel the people that if any can except against the Elders proceedings they shal be heard I answer First before whom and unto whom shal any man except against the Elders is it not before and unto the Elders themselves And is it meet that they should be judges in their own cases In Israel when any complayned of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities ther was an higher Court to control unruly Elders and to help the oppressed But now 2. or 3. Elders in a Church bearing themselves upon their forged authoritie from Mat. 18.17.20 may be lawless and who shal let them in their proceedings Secondly how should the people except when by these mens doctrine they are not bound to be present at the hearing and deciding of the controversie wil it not be a just blame upon them if they except against a matter which they have not heard discussed Thirdly when the party accused shal except against the Elders proceedings as commonly he wil doo for if he acknowledged himself to have synned he should not need to be excōmunicated may the people now require to hear the case debated between the Elders and him nay they plead in their Treatise on Math. 18. saying But where hath the Lord appointed a rule of further proceeding beyond that of the Elders governours for hearing the brethrens causes and judging between a man and his brother c. And agayn the Elders also are the Churches officers c. so as when they have heard examined admonished and iudged according to the word of God it is to be estemed as doon by the Lord and the Church c. Thus let the mā except what he wil the judgm t is at an end the Lo hath doon it the Church hath doon it because the Elders have doon it and it must be presupposed that they have doon it according to the word of God though the man except never so much and though the scriptures foreshew of judges that were wolves not sparing the flock and latter dayes abundantly confirm the same And thus when a Naboth is condemned by wicked Elders if any except on his behalf they wil take him in a snare that reproveth in the gate perhaps he shal hear it sayd by what authoritie doo you speak are you one of the Church spoken of in the 1◠of Matthew for the Elders have power to deal with him also that shal except and can easily bring him within the compass of a contentious person or an oppugner of goverment and cast him likeweise out of the Church that a man sometime were as good take a Lion by the paw as except against the Elders proceedings Next folow their many questions and other matters imputed unto us wherein we observ how when arguments fayl them for their own cause they seek to darken the truth by casting clowds before the readers eyes 1. First they ask whither in Jsrael the Lord abridged the people of their right and libertie c. I answer No but these men that by wrested proportions give the ministers of the church the power that Magistrates Preists and people had in Israel doe abridge the people of their right as before is manifested And for the further clearing of it seing ther were diverse governours in Israel as the Preists and Levites in the Temple the ministers in the synagogues the Elders or Magistrates at the gates of the cities and these also divers and of unequal power as before is shewed I ask of them agayn whither now the Eldership of every church be proportionable in power and goverment unto al those governours and if not unto al unto which of them 2. Secondly they ask whither the people have any more right and authoritie in the churches goverment now then the people of Jsrael had in those dayes I answer they should not seek to intangle by ambiguitie of terms First we give not to the people goverment as before I have shewed but a right and power to observ and doo al the commandements of Christ touching his prophetical preistly and kingly office by the Elders teaching guiding and governing of them in the Lord. 2. The goverm t in Israel was diverse by Magistrates in the gate by Preists in the sanctuarie by ministers in the synagogues To the Magistracie al Christians are to be subject now as they were then for it is an humane ordinance tending to civil peace and concerneth al men whither within the church or without indifferently The external Preisthood of Israel is accomplished in Christ and now abolished Heb. 7.
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
be delivered to Satan and cast out frō among them verse 4.5.13 he did not purpose that the Elders should deliver and cast him out publikly the people privately all being gathered togither for that busines When he would have them purge out the old leven that they might keep the passover with unleavened bread verse 7.8 he meant not that the Ministers should purge the leven and keep the feast publikly the church privately neyther did the type of the Passover in Israel teach them such a thing No nor the judging of malefactors in Israel for when the Magistrates gave sentence of death and the people stoned wicked persons at the gates of the cities the rulers fact was not then publik and the peoples private the scripture teacheth us not thus to distinguish nor reason it self but that the execution was a part of the publik judgement The Apostle writeth in 1. Cor. 5. to all the Church blaming their neglect of the Censure even as in 1. Cor. 11. he writeth to al reproving their abuse in the Lords supper Wherfore if mē wil they may misapply this distinctiō to all church actiōs as to Sacramēts prayers election of officers and the like making them publik in the Elders and private in the church or people and so as the Papists doo also in other cases give all lay men but a private spirit as they use to speak and the ministers onely a publik We find not that Christian people are more excluded from being publik members of the body and actors with their ministers in the Kingdom of Christ then they are in the Preisthood and prophesie And we know no reason why the Pastor himself if he consent not with the Church in casting out such an incestuous person may not be sayd to have a private judgment as wel as an other man But by such popish distinctions the clergie were severed from the laitie and so the people by degrees turned out of al. And what now doo these our Opposits allow the people if they see their Elders to corrupt judgment therfore doo dissent frō thē they make it but the dissent of particular persons judgment from the publik of what sexe or condition soever they be the Christian Magistrate when he is a member of the Church not excepted touching ecclesiastical proceedings and it is to be regarded they say as there shal be cause they mean I trow as the Elders themselves shall see cause And so if a church have 3. or 4. officers and they corrupted with heresie or other vice the whole congregation of people of what condition soever any persons be can pass no publik ecclesiastical judgment upon them by this doctrine as for their private judgement or censure the Elders themselves wil regard it as there shal be cause If this be not a Prelacie which the Elders would usurp I know not what is But of these things see after in this Treatise pag. 22 23. 3. Come wee to reproches disgracings of the truth and way of God and wee shall see among the Papists how they disdeyn that the people should medle in matters of religion and judging of controversies They complayn of them for their ignorance unrulynes disobedience unto government they say the Protestants reason as Chore Dathan and Abyram did Nū 16. when they rebelled against Moses Aaron the Ministers of God saying that there needeth here in the Church no head to govern it because Christ is alwayes with it And did not those wicked men sayth the Papist in their rebelliō against Moses Arō vse the same reasō when they told thē to their face let it suffice you that al the multitude is holy they have God present with thē And why then take you upō your selves the rule over the people of our Lord As who would say having no need of any other ruler God being with them c. The very same reproches doo our Opposites now cast upon us advancing the Elders disgracing the people by intimating their simplicity errour charging us as oppugners of government and abusing against vs the example of Corah Dathā and Abiram as we have often heard with greif telling us we goe upon their grounds and the like For which we wish they may find repentance and mercy with the Lord least he turn the evil upon their own heads as Moses then did upon the Levites For unto them it seemed a smal thing that the God of Israel had separated them from the multitude of Israel to take them neer unto himself to doo the service of the Tabernacle to stand before the Congregatiō and to minister vnto them but they sought the office of the Preist also so these our opposers are not contēt with their office to be separated unto the gospel of God to stand and minister before and unto the Congregation but wil needs be the Congregation it self and take more authoritie then is given them from heaven wherof see after in this book pag. 17.21.22.23 c. 4. What enmitie and persecution the Papists have raysed against the withstanders of their heresies I need not speak al nations have felt of their cruelty Neyther would I here mention our opposite brethrens hard measure to us but that themselves have printed and seek to defend it cease not stil to prosecute their purposes against us Although themselves have lately professed practised publikly mainteyned the truthes which now they oppugn and persecute and bringing innovation into the Church would needs obtrude their errours upon our consciences eyther in judgment or in practise or in both Yea breaking the peace which thēselves had devised agreed unto and confirmed because their brethren would not agree to the undoing of themselves and their families for the satisfying of their wills as is after manifested in this treatise pag. 123 c. If the Lord should reward them according to their works herein towards us their account wil be heavy but my prayer shal be against their evils 5. Wheras many Treatises have been written in defense of the truthes we mainteyn these our Opposers answer them not neyther yet are they silent nor wil give rest unto others but urge aad provoke more writing stil. For the Churches power now in controversie our Apologie bringeth nine reasons these have answered onely one of them which is the sixt drawn from Mat. 18.17 all the other they let stand And yet what clamours have we heard because their exceptions against that one are not by us refuted So in our other articles of differences the scriptures and reasons set down in our Apologie and other books they pass by without answer If they can make any colourable exception they spare it not otherwise for want of argument they fall to asking of questions seeking if they can to insnare us Of which things the reader may see after in this book pag. 45 c. 51. c. 59 c. 23
c. The reasons pressed by our cōmon adversaries Mr Some Mr Giffard Mr Bernard and others touching the baptisme and church of Rome other like matters these men now take up against us The answers published by Mr. Barrow and Mr Robinson they pass by as if they knew them not yea their own former answers and writings they take not away and yet which is most strange they ceass not to press us with the same things I might wel have stayed my pen upon these considerations at least until our Opposers had given themselves further answer and manifested what of their former profession they wil stil abide by but their importunacie wil not suffer me to be silent Wherfore humbly craving the Lords asistance for the defense of the faith once given to the Saincts for my brethrens good if it may be who are thus fallen into errour and evil I have written this answer to their ADVERTISEMENT so farr as it concerneth me labouring by the word of God to reduce them agayn into the right way Their straying from it is a reproch to the world a scandal to the weak dangerous to their own souls and to me most dolorous and my soul shall weep in secret for them remembring our former amitie concord in the truth And I shal yet labour for their good both by prayer unto God and by the utmost of my poor indevours otherweise so long and so farr as I may The principal things handled in this treatise THe Occasion of publishing this controversie and the state therof pag. 1. c. Articles agreed of by the English Church at Frankford in Q. Maries dayes touching the Churches power contrary to our Opposites errors pag. 8.9 A defense of the Letter which Mr. Iohnson hath answered and published pag. 10. c. The first point of difference about the power of the Church and Eldership pag. 12. c. The 2. of the Churches power to receiv in and cast out members when it hath no Elders pag. 45. c. The 3. of the Churches power for election and deposition of their ministers pag. 51. c. The 4. of executing a ministery without lawful caling pag. 59. c. The fift of the Baptisme in the Church of Antichrist pag. 67. c. Of the Church of Rome and whither it be stil Gods true Church pag. 76. c. Mr. Iunius his judgment of the Church of Rome tried pag. 68. c. The 6. of using the help of other Churches in hard controversies pag. 107. An answer to the 7. articles objected by Mr. Iohnson to us pag. 110. c. Mr. Robinsons answer to Mr. Iohnsons exceptions against his book pag. 111. c. Of the conditions of peace by us desired by our opposites refused pag. 123. Of the Agreement by our opposites propounded made and ratified and by them again broken pag. 127. c. The Testimonie of the Elders of the Church at Leyden touching the foresayd agreement and breaking therof pag. 123. c. An Animadversion to Mr Richard Clyftons Advertisement Of the occasion of publishing this controversie and of the state therof AS they that styrr up warrs and strife impute the cause unto others which lyeth on them selves so these our opposers which wil needs bid us battel yet begin it as occasioned by us thereunto They object 1. our private letters and 2. printed Articles as reasons moving them to print against us But how vveighty motives these are on their part let the discreet reader judge by these our answers 1. I wrote no such letters to any til they had printed their first book and so possessed the world with the strife 2. Mine were private to freinds brethren their 's publick even to enemies also 3. They did it of their own proper wil and motion I was provoked sundry wayes by letters from abroad and freinds at home For example one writeth to me thus Because it is doubted by some not onely whither Mr Jo. his practise with you be answerable to his writing but also whither in his writing ther be not a discoherence he being so intricate that many cannot apprehend his meaning my earnest desire is and the desire of many others among us that you would afford us this favour to signify to us by your letter the certaynty c. Another writeth to my freind thus we not knowing wel to send a letter unto M. A. thought good to write unto you to intreat him to write unto us concerning the differences that be amongst you c. Those that come over of M. J. his side say they hold no more concerning the Eldership then M. A. hath written against M. Smyth others say to the contrary we doo therfore intreat M. A. to certifie us of the truth c. Vpon these and the like motives there and here by some that went over to their freinds I have written as I was necessarily occasioned privately of the differences between us making account my letters would come to our opposites hand as is fallen out for which I am not sory save so farr as hereby they occasion their own evils to be further manifested which I had rather if so it pleased God they were hid and buryed by repentance 4. Themselves have doon the like and even this Advertiser wel knowes who wrote to a freind in Engl. perswading against us that saying of the Apostle Receiv him not to house neyther bid him God speed 2. Joh. 10. which letter if we would have sought occasion as they have we might ere this have printed with the answer By this al may see how partial these men are which advertise the world of our writing coversly when themselves if it be a fault are guilty of the same 2. Touching the printed Articles so often spoken of in their Advertisement as we had no hand in or knowledge of the publishing of them so must we now shew the reason of giving them out as we did being even against our wills forced therunto by the frowardnes of these our Opposers First for the Scornful that printed those articles they bear the world in hand as if the Congregation wherof I am and my self had sued others at the law for the meeting howse wheras the contrary was publikly agreed in our Church that we would rather bear the wrong than trouble the Magistrate with our controversie neyther have we ever commenced such a suit 2. But wheras two of our brethren and a widow were cheif owners of the building they sought first in private freindly manner to come to agreement with their opposite brethren but could not then they desired to put it to the arbitrement of indifferent citizens but the other party refused wherupon our brethren signifyed to vs that they must seek help of the Magistrate for the estate of some of them was such as they could not bear the loss and dāmage And asked us if the churches right were caled in question for our adversaries plea was the
church the church what should be answered before the magistrate We with signification as before that we would rather suffer wrong then sue at law yet could not hinder them of seeking for their particular right if in so doing the churches right were called in question that then some certayn appointed should answer for the same 3. Those our brethren before they went to the Iudges intreated the help of the Burgemasters the cheif of the City who laboured by perswasion with our Opposites to put the matter to the arbitrement of good men chosen by both sides but they stil peremptorily refused 4. When it was brought before the Iudges they also at first both perswaded unto and nominated two indifferent men to hear the case but when our opposers came before them they refused to stand to their arbitrement The Iudges the second time appointed them with a mulct or forfeit upō those that refused their arbitrement but our adverse partie persisted in their refusal as before and urged sentence of the Magistrates and pleaded that they which build on another mans ground are by law to loose their building which plea they made because the assurance of the ground was made in the name of one man onely now among them whose name was used but in trust for any other might have had the same as wel as hee as was proved before the Magistrate by sufficient witness Now unto these Arbiters appointed did our brethren willingly referr the cause and to them inquiring of the differences were those Articles exhibited which it seemeth those Libellers or their Scribe by some means that wee know not of procured a copy of and so printed them What cause now have these our opposers to find such fault with our giving out those articles which we were constreyned by them selves to doo unless we should have suffred the truth to have bene troden down They rather have cause to acknowledge their own stiff refractary cariage who would not yeild to any good counsel given them by our brethren by Arbiters or by Magistrates til law forced them therunto and so have occasioned many wayes our cōmon adversaries to rejoyce 3. But we have not sayth the Advertisement as we ought handled and justified the causes for which we separated which were annexed at the end of the Treatise on Mat. 18.17 but have gone about also to possess the world with other matters So after they urge agayn this point that we leav the Treatise unanswered which was purposely written upon that occasion and argument I answer 1. We handled and justified the causes for which we separated by word of mouth in much disputing before we left them and this for them was as we ought and sufficient according to the Apostles practise Act. 1◠8.9 And now we are by their importunacie caled to handle and justifie them before the world in writing which whither we doo as we ought the sequel shal shew to the judicious reader 2. It is not we but they which have gone about to possess the world with other matters for the things we charge them with themselves in effect acknowledge and as wel as they can doo defend them But their declaration against us in the Treat on Mat. 18. is defective and the 7. points they article now against us are superfluous and injuriously wrested against us as our answers to them shal manifest The controversie in deed began upon the exposition of Mat. 18.17 but so as we have heard in times past Anabaptists begin controversie upon Mat. 28.19 who have reasoned both from that and al other scriptures against the baptising of infants so these opposites from Mat 18.17 and al other scriptures that we could bring reasoned against the power of the people in judging syn synners We formerly professing the Church there to be Elders and people joyntly they now striving that it is not so but the Elders onely we knew it must be eyther the name or the power of the church that they would have And we never thought them so vayn as to make such a styrr for a name or title we held therfore to the power which Christ hath given to his church for judging of them that are within 1. Cor. 5.4.12.13 Of this when we pressed them they first gave this answer that the Elders had the rightful power to excommunicate though without and against the consent of all the people but not the able power even as David had rightful power to put Ioab to death but was not able because others were too hard for him 2. Sam. 3.39 To which we answered in matters of this life which are external men may be hindred by outward force but in the spiritual administration of the Church not so Gods word by which they administer is not in bonds 2 Tim. 2.9 But if one man onely have the power from Christ he may use it against all the world So upon better consideration a week after they affirmed the Elders to have both rightful power and able power to excommunicate though without and against the consent of all the people And thus was ful power put in the Elders hands of the people they sayd their power and right was as in Israel and in the primitive churches But being asked what that was answer was made it was to be inquired So the poor people are left to seek their right wher they can find it the Elders have ynough they have found that they sought for As Paul to disswade the Corinthians from their errour in denying the resurrection shewed them the dangerous consequences of the same as that if ther be no resurrection of the dead then Christ is not risen then the Apostles preaching was vayn then the Churches fayth was also vayn c. so I held it my duty to shew the people the consequences of the former error which though at first it may seem smal yet is it as a strong fort in the mouth of a country which if the enemy win the whole land is soon lost For if all the power of receiving in and casting out were given to the Elders then our Church which was first gathered and constituted did receiv in and cast out members without Elders was not planted by the power of Christ neyther had they authoritie to set up Elders if they could not agayn vpon desert depose them and if they had not power to judge their brethren much less could they judge their Elders And here came in the gathering of the church by vertue of popish baptisme and of receiving the ministery from Rome as wel as the baptisme and the like which our opposites were and must necessarily be driven unto for defense of their errour And as for the first gathering of this church they sayd an error in the doing overthroweth not the action for Isaak erred in blessing Iaakob in sted of Esau yet the action did stand To which we answered that it was doon by a person
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
reformed and confirmed by the authoritie of the church and magistrate Art 38. The ministers and seniors severally and jointly shal have no authority to make any maner of decrees or ordinances to bind the congregation or any member therof but shal execute such ordinances and decrees as shal be made by the congregation and to them delivered 44. The ministers and seniors elect have authoritie as the principal members of the congregation to govern the sayd congregation according to Gods word and the discipline of the church and also to cal togither and assemble the sayd congregation for causes and at times as shal to them seem expedient Provided alwayes that if any dissention shal happen between the ministers and seniors or the more part of them and the body of the congregation or the more part of it and that the sayd ministers and seniors in such controversie being desired therto wil not assemble the congregation that then the congregation may of it self come togither and consult and determine as concerning the sayd controversie or controversies and the sayd assembly to be a lawful congregation and that which they or the more part of them so assembling shal judge or decree the same to be a lawful decree and ordinance of sufficient force to bind the whole congregation and every member of the same 46. Item in case some doo depart out of the sayd congregation that yet not withstanding those which stil remayn if they be the greater part to be a lawful congregation and that which they or the more part of them shal decree to be a lawful decree of force to bind the whole body ministers seniors deacons and every other member or members therof without exception 53. If any of the congregation be offensive c. to any of the brethren so that the offense be private he is first brotherly to admonish him alone If that doo not prevayl to cal one or 2. witnesses If that also doo not prevayl then to declare it to the ministers and Elders to whome the Congregation hath given authoritie to take order in such cases according to the discipline of the Church 54. Ther be 3. degrees of ecclesiastical discipline first that the offender acknowlege his fault and shew himself penitent before the ministers and seniors The 2. that if he wil not so doo as wel his original crime as also his contempt of the ministers c. be openly declared by one of the ministers before the whole congregation c. The 3. that if he remayn stil obstinate before the whole congregation after a time to him by the whole congregation limitted to repent in he then shal be openly denounced excommunicate which excommunicatiō seing it is the uttermost penaltie of ecclesiastical power shal not therfore be executed until the matter be heard by the whole Church or such as it shal specially appoint ther unto 62. If al the ministers and seniors which have authority to hear and determine c. be suspected or found parties or if any appeal be made from them that then such appeal be made to the body of the congregation the ministers seniors and parties excepted and that the body of the congregation may appoint so many of the congregation to hear determine the sayd matter or matters as it shal seem good to the Congregation 65. That the Ministers and Seniors and every of them be subiect to ecclesiastical discipline and correction as other private members of the Church be 67. If any controversie be upon the doubtful meaning of any word or words in the discipline that first it be referred to the ministers seniors And if they cannot agree therupon then the thing to be brought and referred to the whole congregation These and the like things were agreed of by that church to suppress the exorbitant power which the ministers then chalenged wherby the reader may see 1. what the learned and most conscionable of the church of England held heretofore which if they had continued in would have freed them of al antichristian prelacie the bane of so many churches 2. That this opinion of the churches power above the Elders is not new or first professed by us as some doo reproch us 3. And that these Advertisers which now oppose against us if they had looked upon the examples which themselves alledge might have seen their errours resisted by others against which the Lord hath now caled us also to witness He vouchsafe to be with us in this busynes and guide my hart and hand to defend his truth Of the Letter by M. Iohnson answered and published and by H. Ainsworth now defended Wherin the Articles of difference between both parties are set down and discussed THree things are to be treated of 1. The points wherin they are gone frō their former profession 2. The points wherin they now charge us to differ from our former profession 3. The conditions of peace which they refused For an entrance into this controversie M. Iohnson gives 5. observations First that wee left them upon two particular matters concerning the Churches government and the exposition of Mat. 18 17. doo not directly keep to them as we ought nor answer the things printed I answer this their beginning is ambiguous and fraudulent The churches government is somtime taken largely sometime strictly sometime it is spoken of Christ upon whose shoulders the government is and hereof ther was no controversie Sometime it is spoken of the ministerial ruling and governing the church by Elders neyther of this doe we make any question but hold as heretofore that Christ governeth his church outvvardly by their ministration Sometime men use it generally for the whole outward politie power and as many cal it discipline of the Church and about this in part our cōtroversie was But I wil manifest the frawd We in our published writings distinguish the government and the power acknowledging government to be by the officers but power in the whole body of the Church And for this point of power are 9. reasons set down wherof one is drawn from Christs speech Mat. 18.17 tel the Church Apol. pag. 62.63 Between these two is the matter so conveyed as while we plead for the churches right and power we are sayd to oppugn goverment and when we yeild the Elders to govern they therby would inclose the whole power in their hands as in the furder handling of these things shal appear But if a church have one minister onely he is to teach and govern them by the word of God yet is not any one man a Church neyther hath the power of a Church Yea this distinction is in one particular by themselves acknowledged in the same book it is they say undenyable that to give voices in election is not a part of government or a duty peculiar to the governours of the church but an interest power right and libertie that the saincts and people out of office
have Very wel sayd wherupon we inferr also that to give voices in deciding of controversies and judging of synners is not a part of government but a power and right that the saincts out of office have The Elders are to teach direct and govern the church in election of officers they are to doo the like in judging excommunicating wicked persons and in all other publik affairs Of the exposition of Mat. 18.17 and why their Treatise was not particularly answered I have spoken before the special things therin are in this treatise repeted and so shal be here answered 2. Their second observation I like wel yeild unto that men may change and redress according to Gods word things that are amyss but withal I would have them 1. plainly to acknowledge wherin they erred and what they stablish for truth and 2. to take away by Gods word the reasons wherupon they builded before Which wither these our opposers have doon as they ought I leav it for the discreet reader to judge by their writings compared with those which were published heretofore to the contrary 3. The third for the churches goverment by the officers is that which we alwayes have and stil do yeild to as even now I shewed As for our former practise altered and as he sayth by me acknowledged towching the order and manner of the practise in one particular I grant it but for the power of the Church wherof we treat I deny it There never was such a practise in my dayes as wherby the Elders should be esteemed the Church and to have the povver of the same 4. The 4. observation is that our exceptions are such as the Anabaptists would object in much like manner Yet dooth he not shew this so to be and I know for their successive Ministerie they are neerer the Anabaptists than wee both for it and other points they build upon the very grounds of poperie as after shal be manifested But what doe vve except is it not from our former Articles and Apologie confirmed by scriptures from vvhich these are departed in penning also vvherof these that thus vvrite had a principal hand So they doo hereby not onely joyn vvith our cōmon adversaries vvho intvvite us vvith Anabaptistrie but impute weaknes to their ovvn former vvritings and cause vvherin more strength of truth hath appeared then ever they shal be able to pul dovvn hovvsoever they may assayl it The 5. observation is a mist cast before the readers eyes a collection of 7. things vvherin they vvould make men beleev vve are gone from that vve held heretofore The errour vvherof I vvil shevv hereafter vvhen as order requireth I have examined the ansvvers that they make for themselves to these our Articles vvhich novv next folovv The first point of difference in the Letter 1. Wheras we had learned and professed that Christ hath given the power to receiv in or to cut off any member to the whole body togither of every Congregation and not to any one or moe members sequestred from the whole now wee have been lately taught that the Church which Christ sendeth to for the redress of synns Mat. 18.17 is not to be understood of the whole body of the Congregation but of the Church of Elders And it being granted of al that with the Church is the power the Elders being the Church have the power and so not the whol body of the congregation togither And in the copie vvhich Lavvne printed The 24. Article of the Confession of our faith confirmed in our Apologie pag. 60.62.63 professeth that the povver to receiv in or to cut off any member is given to the whole body togither of every Christian Congregation Mat. 18.17 c. These have pleaded for the Eldership to be the Church Mat. 18. and to have both rightful power and able power to excommunicate though without against the consent of the body of the Congregation The scriptures to confirm our former doctrine and practise are in our Confession Psal. 122.3 Act. 2.47 Rom. 16.2 Mat. 18.17 1. Cor. 5.4 2. Cor. 2.6.7.8 Levit. 20.4.5 24. 14. Num. 5 2.3 Deut. 13.9 The reasons in our Apologie are nine the first referring to proofs of former positions the other 8 confirmed by sundry arguments doctrines practises gathered from the Prophetical and Apostolical scriptures For ansvver hereunto their Advertisement telleth vs many things First of their Treatise published on Mat. 18.17 touching vvhich I also have spoken before Neyther is this point of the Churches power therin plainly handled but closely caried neyther is ther any thing at al sayd to take avvay the other 8. reasons in our Apologie Let the reader compare the writings and judge There be also things formerly written both by others and by them selves touching this of Mat. 18. and things lately published against M. Bernard about it to these they give no answer at al yet cal they upon us to write more 2. Secondly they carp at this phrase the Church of Elders and would have it the Congregation or Assemble of Elders saying that so men might sooner perceiv the vanitie of our error And that I my self elswhere shew the word is sometime used for an Assemblie of Elders I answer 1. If they wil rase the word Church out of the Bible as unfit they may doo so in Mat. 18. and in this controversie or els they must give us leav to keep wonted known words which help men to discern the truth of matters 2. Neyther shew they any one scripture for the phrase they would have the Congregation of Elders neyther did I ever shew or could see the word Church so to mean in al the new Testament but in the old which now is changed I have observed it in some few places 3. But be it Church or Congregation I wil not much contend yet I know their eyes wil dazel that look hereby to discern in our doctrine eyther vanity or error Albeit I confess these our opposites have the Papists on their side for so Card Bellarmine expoundeth this Tel the Church that is the Prelate or the Congregation of Prelates Stapleton interpreteth the Church Mat. 18. to be the Ministers 3. Thirdly they observe that the scriptures of the old testament are quoted for our 24. Article as directly carying us for this matter to the Church of Jsrael which now we would not be brought unto c. I answer the first is true for the scriptures cited doo shew that the people were interessed in those publike actions with their magistrates and therfore there is no reason that now there ministers should claym the whole power to themselves The latter is untrue for we did consider and decide the matter between us by the scriptures of the old Testament compared with the new and so are stil ready to doo But alwayes with observing the differences between the state of the church then now which are many as the Apostles
doo teach us Heb. 8. 9. 10. chapters Gal. 4.1.2.3 c. Heb. 12 1â— 28. 4. Their last observation hath two branches the 1. that the power of receiving in cutting off in Jsrael was to be performed according to order and not to weaken but to stablish thhe Elders authoritie This we willingly graÌ„t neither ever doubted of But we observ withal a deceyt which they couch under this name Elders which usually in the old Testament is given to Magistrates which are also caled in respect of their autoritie Lords Princes Judges yea and Gods 1. Sam. 23.12 Num. 21.18 22.7.8 Deut. 19.17.18 Exod. 21.6 Psal. 8 2. and by the Apostles they are caled â—owers or Autorities and Glories or Dignities Tit. 3.1 2. Pet. 2.10 But the name Elders now in the Church of Christ is given to the Ministers 1. Pet. 5.1 who are forbidden to exercise autoritie or to be as Lords over Gods heritage or to be caled by such stately titles Mat. 20.25.26 1. Pet. 5.1 Luk. 22.25.26 They streyn therfore too farr vvhich wil proportion the authoritie and power of the Elders that should stand and minister to the Church as did the Preists and Levites with the autoritie of the Elders the Magistrates that late and judged in the gates 2. The second branch of their observation is that we must not be strangers from the policie of Jsrael Ephe. 2.12 c. I answer by politie they mean not I hope the inward faith which Israel had but the outward order of administring in that Church otherweise they reason neyther properly nor to the question in hand Yea in this very place the Apostle distinguisheth the politie from the covenants of promise And so I deny that wee are bound now to keep the politie of Israel neyther dooth the Apostle mean any such thing For he putteth the Ephesians in mind of their estate being paynims when they were uncircumcised without Christ without Israels politie without covenaÌ„ts of promise without hope without God But now in Christ they were united brought neer but wherunto to circumcision nay he sayth elswhere if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing or to the ordinances of worship in the Temple nay for he sayth we have an aultar wherof they have no authoritie to eat which serv in the tabernacle Or were they now to goe up as did the Tribes to the earthly Ierusalem where thrones of judgment were set thrones for the howse of David nothing so for Christ was to destroy both Citie Sanctuarie so to force the Iewes to an end of their politie But now the Ephesians were come unto the Father by one Spirit and unto Christ who abrogated through his flesh the hatred that is the law of coÌ„mandements which stood in ordinances and was faithful as Moses in al his house and to be citizens with the Saincts and howshold of God which are built not upon Moses politie that is doon away but upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets that is the doctrine which they taught of Christ and of the ordinances of his Testament which is a kingdome that cannot be shakeÌ„ as was the coÌ„mon-wealth of Israel according to the flesh Look therefore what politie the Apostles have taught and taken from the Law or Moses the Prophets foretold should continue under the Gospel so much wil we reteyn the rest we leav to Iewes Iewishly affected And these are the things which they have answered to the first objection in the Letter which whither they have proved the Elders now under the Gospel to be the Church which is to judge of syn and synners and to have power as the Church in their own hands let al indifferent men judge as also what cause they had to conclude that we oppose against Jsrael Moses and the Prophets and to cry out against us as they doo that such is our error and so great is our transgression and iniquitie But because of the printed copie they set upon us afresh with many observations and questions and by matters with longsomnes ynough wheras a few sound arguments would much better have cleared the controversie and contented the reader They observ 1. that the scriptures of the old Testament are quoted in our Article as wel as of the new 2. That Mat. 18. is to agree with the other scriptures cited 3. That it must be understood with proportion to the manner in Jsrael 4. That therfore their understanding is according to the ancient faith and not ours who would make them strangers from Jsrael and would perswade them that Christs doctrine in Mat. 18.17 is a new rule c. I answer these are in effect the things we heard before and which in my answers I have partly granted partly refuted 1. The proportion they speak of is a disproportion concluding from Magistrates authoritie in the Commonâ—wealth to Ministers in the Church which is against Christs doctrine Mat. 20.25.26 And if they wil not learn it of Christ they may learn it of Cato an alien from the common wealth both of Israel and of Christ who yet sayd to such Jt becomes yow to be mindfull of your condition that yow are not Magistrates but Ministers 2. It is a mayn pillar of Poperie to proportion the Church now in the outward politie to Israel The Rhemists would have the the see of Rome in the new law to be answerable to the chair of Moses Cardinal Bellarmine maketh his first argument for the Popes judging of controversies from the Preist Judge that was appointed in the Law Deut. 17. And as Moses sate as Prince of the Church and gave answer to al doubts arising about the Law of God Exod. 18. so by proportion he wil have now in the papacie And in deed for show the papists proportion to have one supreme court above al to end weighty causes and appeals more resembleth Israel then dooth these mens Eldership in every particular Church 3. It is an argument that others except papists have disclaymed D. Bilson whose learning and goodwil hath holpen the prelacie as much as any mans and whose understanding of Mat. 18.17 these our opposites in some points doo now follow he confesseth that to reason from the Magistrate to the minister from the sword to the word from the law to the Gospel c. the leap is so great that cart-ropes wil not tye the conclusion to the premisses D. Whitakers D. Iunius and others refuting the Papists disalow the reasons drawn from the law and magistracie of Israel which these our opposers make their cheifest bulwark M. Cartwright answering D. Whitgift sayth the argument is not good from civil government to ecclesiastical When Bellarmine allegeth the civil Monarchies to justify the ecclesiastical Iunius answereth the exaÌ„ple is altogither unlike of temporal empire and spiritual ministery between these there is not neyther
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
yet in Davids Kingdom and Levies preisthood ther was a figure also of the kingdom and preisthood that Christ bestoweth on the saincts Who have as much more power and libertie in the Gospel now than the Iewes had as the heyr when he is of yeres hath more then in his childhood Gal 4.1.2.3 yet alwayes in order and with submission to the ministerial goverment of their Leaders And I ask of these agayn whither the Christian Magistrates now are not to have their voices with the ministers of the church wherof they are in the admonishing censuring of synners ecclesiastically and in other publik questions and controversies of religion 3. Thirdly they ask Whether the people of Jsrael were not Kings and Preists c. as wel as the Christian people are now Exod. 19.5 Psal. 149.1 c. with 1. Pet. 2.9.10 Rev. 1.6 I answer first as touching the coÌ„munication of their external kingdom and preisthood it is evident that the Israelites were not so the natural seed of David of Levi as Christians now are the spiritual seed of them in Christ Jer. 33 22. Secondly for communication with the spiritual kingdom and preisthood of Christ by them shadowed the Israelites were Kings and Preists as well as we but with differences For Israels state and ours are not simply opposed yet doo they differ in manner degree They were Kings and Preists as they were Christians and partakers of the Anoynting and that is as they were under the nevv Testament But they were not so under it as we are neyther are we so under the old Testament as were they They were heyres of the heavenly things but as children and so as Paul sayth under tutors and governours in servitude under the rudiments of the world until the time appointed of the Father that is until Christs comming The scriptures which they quote doo confirm this For the promise in Exodus 19.5.6 is legal if they kept Gods covenant as in another place if they did his statutes they should live by them which Paul sheweth to be a speech of the law not of the gospel Now that condition Israel kept not neyther could therfore not the law but Christ hath made us Kings and Preists Rev. 1.5.6 and until Christ came Israel was kept under the law as under a scholemaster had an external preisthood which could give them no perfection and therfore is abolished and our state much bettered as is shewed at large Heb. 12.18 19 20.21 22. c. as the prophets also foretold Jsa 61 5 6. Jer. 33 15. 22. Mal. 3.3.4 of this estate under the gospel is the 149. psalm a prophesie though in their mesure they then also fulfilled it and the place of Peter confirmeth it Whereunto we may add the testimonie of the Iewes Rabbies touching their estate vnder that scholemaster of the law With three crownes say they was Jsrael crowned with the the crown of the law and the crown of the preisthood and the crown of the kingdom The crown of the preisthood was bestowed upon Aaron and his seed Num. 25.13 The crown of the kingdom was bestowed on David and his seed Ps. 89.36 The crown of the law loe it is appointed stablished and confirmed unto all Jsrael as it is written Moses coÌ„manded vs a law the inheritance of the congregation of Jaâ—kob In that they al had the law to use so freely were so restreyned froÌ„ the kingdom Preisthood it argueth their childhood yet might they see by faith their inheritance in those types how all Christians should by participation of Christs anoynting be that seed of David and of Levi promised Jer. 33.22 Rev. 5.9.10 20 6. And here I also ask of our opposers whither the Ministers of the Gospel be Kings and Preists now by their office of ministery in the Church 4. Fourthly they ask whether the Churches power be not a ministerial power onely I answer the power it self is Christs and so royal or kingly but al that the Church dooth is onely to administer that power under Christ. And I ask of them agayn whether they think the Elders have the whole power which Christ hath given to his Church 5. Fiftly they ask whether the Elders power be not ministerial under the Lord in and for the Church c. I answer an ambiguous question cannot be answered til it be cleared First this word power is large and they must shew how they limit it for by comparing this question with the former they seem to put al the Churches power into the ministers hand which I deny They have also misshapen the proportion of their power from the Magistrates of Israel as before we have heard contrary to Christs commandement Mat. 20 25 26. 1. Pet. 5.3 Secondly the vvord ministerial is also diversly used in a special sense the Officers onely are caled Ministers in a general sense the whole Church are Ministers and doo administer and dispose the manifold graces of God the word Cohen Preist given to all saincts dooth properly signify a Minister Thirdly for the Elders function I grant it to be ministerial under the Lord in and for the Church but also unto yea and under the Church secondarily as the spowse of Christ in that sense that Paul speaketh the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14 32. And I ask of them agayn whether the Ministers of the Christian synagogues now have any more authoritie then had the Ministers in the Iewes synagogues or then they to whom it was sayd Serv the Lord your God his people Jsrael 2. Chron. 35 3. Ezek. 44.11 But here before they have our answer they conclude that therfore ther is no weight in our obiections about the Elders power as if it were not the churches c. I answer first they conclude not the question set down in the article but because it was too heavy they leav it and turn to other matters Secondly they conclude with an aequivocation in this word power which is not in the same sense to be applied to the Elders as it is to the body of the Church Thirdly the Iesuites doo in this wise conclude also for the Pope For the power government vvhich they dispute for is not absolute but such they say as may be in ministers and stewards 1. Cor. 4 1. And that the povver vvhich the Pope and prelates execute should be the Churches povver it is the thing that they vvould have So vvheras our opposites tel us of the Elders power that in deed it is the Churches the papists also tel us the same but the more is their syn that deprive the Church of it by ingrossing it into their own hands alone thus did the Pope clime by steps unto his primacie And it is say they to be ministred by the Officers but not say I by them onely therin is the
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
their brethren Against al vvhich he armeth his disciples and teacheth the orderly vvay to redress them And that his rules should not be despised he assureth them that their censures executed on earth shal be ratified in heaven the ground vvherof is his name vvherin they should be gathered togither and his presence in the mids of them And this phrase of Christs name leadeth us also evidētly unto the church under the gospel for it meaneth the clear manifestation of Christ with the power and profession of him as Act. 2 38. 3 16 4 12 17. 2 Tim. 2 19. In respect wherof Christ sayd to his disciples hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name Joh. 16 24. These rules therfore doo most properly serve for the Church since Christs comming therfore he sendeth not his disciples to the Iewes synedriōs much less to the hethen magistrates for redress of the synns that should arise in his kingdom But our opposites doo except what is here taught that the Jewes should not observ as wel as we should not they be humble harmless c. I answer that which the gospel teacheth touching faith repentance humility c the Iewes were also bound unto though these and the like things are otherwise opened and urged now under the gospel Rom. 16.25.26 but ther was to be an other form and order of the Christian church than of the Iewish and in that respect Moses politie must give place Ye they proceed and inferr that the offender if he repent not should be brought to the Congregation of Elders This I deny in their understanding who make this to be one with the Synedrion or Council of Magistrates in Mat. 5.22 which place I have also treated of before and I affirm it to be the Christian Church or Congregation of faithful people the spowse and bride of Christ with whom his power is left to judge al synners within the same their Elders guiding and governing them in their judgments For the outward form of the Iewish Church was abolished by Christ the common wealth of Israel dissolved and given up to the Romanes whose Caesar they preferred before Christ. The Temple ruinated the ministerie also changed and the ordinances though in many things proportionable with Israel but for Ministers authoritie over his people to govern them Magistrate like it is forbidden Mat. 20.25 26. Luk. 22 25. 1. Pet. 5 3. 1. Cor. 3 22 23. and for any church of Elders the whole new Testament knoweth it not nor any such practise as these would bring in but that the same church which came togither to the word and sacraments came also togither to judge and cast out obstinate synners and were all blamed for the neglect of this duty as for any other And for deciding controversies the Apostles Elders and brethren did come togither with one accord And such order continued in Churches some yeres after the Apostles for Tertullian relateth the manner of Christian assemblies in his time how they came togither into a congregation for to pray unto God and for to rehearse the divine scriptures and with holy words to nourish faith styrr up hope and fasten confidence How there also were exhortations reproofs and divine censures and judgment given with great deliberation the approved Seniors being presidents in the assemblies And Cyprian Bishop of Carthage sheweth how with him mens causes were handled not onely before the Elders but the whole multitude without whose consent also nothing was doon Next foloweth their exception about women and children asking if they should in a controversie be the greater part whither then they be the church spoken of Also whither in the congregation and presence of the Elders the women and children have authority by vertue of that rule Mat. 18.17 to examine rebuke admonish their husbands parents c. for they that are of the church there spoken of may examine c. I answer first they omitt what heretofore wee answered them when they fished about this matter namely that the whole church of men women children are to be present at ecclesiastical judgments as at al other publick administrations of the church wher whatsoever is performed is doon by prayer and the ministration of the word that al may receiv instruction by the word there ministred and as is written al Israel may hear and fear and doo no more any such wickednes But no other to have voices or suffrages in excommunications c. then they that have voices in election or deposition of officers And they know wel it was never our judgment or practise that in Elections women or children should give their voices the Apostle and nature it self requiring women to be silent in the church they also themselves have thus professed and practised with us many yeres Secondly they have seen Mr. Robinsons answer to M. Bernard cavilling likewise about women and children to the same effect Yet wil they take no notice of his answer or of ours nor make any reply but thus trouble the world and us in special to answer agayn and agayn whatsoever they please to demand For after in pag. 43. of their book they are twise up agayn with these questions of women and children as if we had nought ells to doo but to answer and answer their tautologies Thirdly seing they thus deal to make the truth seem odious and to set the more colour upon their prelacie imitating the papists and popish affected they shal have the like things demanded of them not by us but by others Themselves as yet allow popular election of officers because they say to give voices in election is not a part of government but a power right and libertie that the saincts and people out of office have and should use Now those of the prelates faction which deny this power of the people say thus unto them By this reckning men women and children for al the faithful be interested shal have voices in election of their ministers if any dissent al must be dashed Jt had been very requisite that our authour for the appointing of these Democratical elections the better unto vs should with proof out of scripture for every particular have shewed whether women or children of some reasonable discretion should have voices in election of their Minister whether he should be chosen by all by the greater part or by the better part whether the wives voice should be accounted several or but one with her husband or whether she might dissent from her husband or the father from the son c. They that compare these two writers may see how they wrote by one spirit and almost with one pen. Yet because in this point of popular election they doo differ wee leave it for our opposites to answer these demands to the Prelates and then if need be they shal hear further of us touching popular
I answer that is true for infants as they excepted have not But that onely the Elders have fit gifts for such purposes is untrue the scripture and dayly experience tells us the contrary yea some other meÌ„bers may have fitter gifts then the Elders And they theÌ„selves that now are officers had they not gifts fit to examine judge decide c. before they were choseÌ„ into office or did their election give them gifts which had none fit before 4. Fourthly they wil have this scripture direct against us in that it sheweth how some have a more cheif place then others as the head and eyes hands in the body This is not against us at all for we grant so much But they say we litle regard it who in cases of controversie wil look where the greatest number of people is though they may be of the most simple and wil have them to be the church and to have the power c. as if the multitude should stil be folowed and that ther were no difference of gifts of office or other respect at al to be had I answer 1. they keep their wont in abusing us before the world we look not in any case to the greatest number eyther of people or Elders but in al cases we look to Gods law and testimonie as we are commanded vvhich vvhen it is shevved by vvhom soever al ought to yeild unto We knovv neyther the multitude neyther yet the mightie or Rabbies are stil to be folowed there are differences of gifts and offices in the church yet no mans gift or office no not though he vvere an Angel from heaven may cary us from the vvritten vvord by vvhich the Godly people tried even the Apostles doctrine and vvere commended Although therfore the Church hath that libertie vvhich al societies that have none to exercise dominion or authoritie over them have namely that the greater number overswayeth the lesser when al accord not yet the faithful are not so to look unto or folow the greater number as to decline from the least of Gods commandements This we may see in the 12. tribes of Israel where the greater nuÌ„ber even ten of the tribes fel to false worship and they caried away with them not onely the tribute of two hundred thowsand lambs and ramms which were due yerely from Moab to the Kings of Iudah were wrongfully chalenged and taken by the Kings of Samaria but caried away also the title of the Church being usually even by al the Prophets named Jsrael wheras Iudah and Benjamin were Israel as wel as Ephraim and the rest yea in deed they were the onely Israel of God as the scripture counteth Israel Yet did not the faithful respect this greater number but left them with their title and usurpation and went to the lesser part which was the better 2. But is it not strange that these our opposites wil object these things to us when in some things they doo the same and in their new establisht hierarchie much worse For in their popular election of officers which they stil allow if it may continue must not the greater number of voices cary the thing And yet there is no action of the church that needeth more wisdom government or circumspection then this And therfore many precepts are left for the careful and holy performance of it 1. Tim. 3. 5. Tit. 1. And wil not the Papists now cast the reproches on their own faces as they that would have the multitude stil folowed as if there were no difference of gifts c. 3. And touching their hierarchie the Eldership they wil not I think deny but the greater number of voices among them must prevayl Now that being so a Church having a Pastor and a Teacher that are learned and 3. or 4. ruling Elders which are as unlearned as the other of the people taken of trades men and the like these 3. or 4. Rulers whose power they have proportioned with the Princes of Israel shal by their number of voices cary matters though it be against Pastor Teacher and 500 brethren Yea these may excommunicate or depose the Pastor and Teacher and cast out of the brethren but none can excommunicate them or depose them joyntly from their offices The utmost that we can find these men to allow the Church in these exigents is when they have doon al they can to separate from them and this power any man hath in the church of Rome But I hope every one that â—avoureth the things of God aright wil abhorr such an unruly prelacie For if these Elders prove such as Paul foretold of greevous wolves not sparing the flock but speaking perverse things to draw disciples after theÌ„ as the Church hath had woeful experience of now so many hundred yeres what havock miserie wil not they bring upon Gods people And if we add unto this their other opinioÌ„ of Gods covenant to continue with a Church though they fall into so many horrible synns idolatries blasphemies as the Romish synagogue hath doon which now they plead for to be stil the true church of Christ what wil not a presumpuous Eldership doo and yet bear out themselves with this that they are the true church and al that leave them for what cause soever are schismaticks 4. Let the reader also observ their manner of pleading when they speak of the Elders proceedings they annex according to the Law of God but speaking of the people they annex though in error and though never so erroneously caried and though they be of the most simple as if they would perswade men that the Elders usually through their wisdom and godlynes walked aright and the people through simplicitie and errour went astray Wheras if eyther the scriptures be searched or humane histories or the present state of churches be looked upon we shal see the greatest errours heresies schismes and evils to have both arisen and been continued by the Elders preists and learned Rabbines in al ages even Christ himself found no greater enemies then the high preists scribes and rulers of the people which turned to his reproch then wherof his church now is made partaker so that they sayd dooth any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees beleev in him but this people which knâ—w not the Law are cursed John 7.48.49 5. Neyther if it were true dooth their supposition that the Elders wil judge according to the law bear out their supremacie which Christ hath forbidden For besides that one man may judge according to law both the princes of Israel and the princes of other nations were bound to the lawes prescribed yet may not the ministers now by proportion have princelike authoritie 1. Pet. 5.3 The philosopher could say They that bid the Law bear rule doe bid God to bear rule by his own voice but they that bid man bear rule meaning without law doo bid
consciences of the Church But they allege further the Elders are to have maintenance for the doing of it and of the other duties c. I answer let them then excōmunicate alone as wel as try the case alone seing they have maintenance for both and let the people be bound to come to neyther no nor to the Pastours ministring of the word and sacraments if this reason be good because he is more worthy maintenāce than the ruling Elders as th'Apostle sheweth But then they say men must leav their trades women their families children their scholes servants their work and come to hear and judge cases that fall out between brother brother I answer 1. First they restreyn things too much when they say between brother brother for what if it be a publick case of heresie or idolatrie as that mentioned Deut. 13 12 13 14. c. wil they say women children and servants were then or are now bound to leav their callings come togither to trie out the matter 2. Secondly many cōtroversies between neighbours are for civil things of this life such are not church matters nor there to be heard but by Magistrates or arbiters chosen 3. Thirdly for doubtful cases ecclesiastical people are to inquire the law at the Preists mouth and to ask counsel of their Elders severally or joyntly who are to have their meetings apart for such and other like ends so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church 4. Fourthly when apparant synners so convicted by witnesses are to be judged by the Church ther is no time more fit then the sabbath day wherin all men are bound to leav their own works tend to the Lords of which sort this is Or if that day suffice not they may take any other for them convenient for unto publick affayrs the Church is to be assembled 1. Cor. 5.4 Act. 14.27 15.4 30. 21.18 22. Against this I know they except saying who can shew such an ordinance of God find we such a course used in Jsrael on the Sabbath dayes Did they not meet on the Sabbath in the temple and synagogues for Gods worship c. and the Elders sit in the gates on the week dayes to hear controversies c. I answer for this later point they bring not any one scripture to confirm it yet wil I not strive ther about for I think it is true Sure I am the Ievves canon lavves so declare Jt is not lawful they say to judge on the Sabbath or on a festival day yea further that matters of life and death may not be judged on the evening of the Sabbath or on the evening of a festival day least the accused be found guilty and it be impossible to kyl him on the morow I account civil controversies of things perteyning to this life as Paul caleth them to be of our own works which by the law are to be doon in the six dayes and therfore think it not lawful for Magistrates to keep courtes or Assises to judge and execute malefactors on the Sabbath And this among other things sheweth a mayn difference between the Eldership of the Church and the Magistracie of Israel But for ecclesiastical works by preists or people they were to be doon on the sabbaths as circumcision kylling slaying cutting and burning of sacrifices which was very laborious work and even a breach of the sabbath in outward shew but that the different nature of the action made it blameless Now the church judgments are the Lords works not ours and therfore fittest to be doon on the Lords day they belong to Christs kingly office and therfore are holy as the works of his prophetical and preistly office These our opposites themselves compare the casting out by excōmunication with the contrary receiving in by baptisme Al churches baptise on the Sabbath and also excommunicate on the Sabbath why should not the cause be heard as wel as the judgment executed on that day We find ecclesiastical controversies were disputed on the Sabbath dayes in Israel as the Apostles practise sheweth Act. 13.44.45.46 17.2.3 18.4 It was lawful on the Sabbath to heal the body and is it unlawful to heal the sowl It was lawful to save a sheep from dying in a ditch and is it not lawful to save a sowl from death and cover a multitude of synns Seing therfore the Sabbath is to be sanctified by the word of God and prayer and al that the church ministers are to doo belongeth unto these as th'Apostles teach us Act. 6.4 we think it is too Pharisee like to carp at church judgments on the Sabbath and then servants which are the Lords freemen and al other resting from their own works may attend to the Lords without such inconveniences as these would cast in their way And hitherto of the first point in controversie The second point of difference in the Letter 2. WE had learned that every true Church of Christ hath this power to cast out obstinate synners from amongst them this not onely when it hath officers but also when it wanteth them but now we were taught that a people without officers have not power to cast out obstinate synners Which doctrine amongst other evils overthroweth the constitution of the Church that so taught for it was gathered and constituted by Christians without officers receiving in the repentant and casting out the disobedient wheras by this opinion they had power from Christ to doe neyther for they that cannot cast out cannot receiv in one power is for both With this they joyn out of the printed copy 6. The 33. article in our Confession which our Apologie also confirmeth pag. 45. professeth that people being come forth of the Antichristian estate c. are willingly to joyn togither in Christian communion and orderly covenant and to unite themselves into peculiar and visible congregations c. These have pleaded that al are bound to communion by vertue of their baptisme received in the Church of Rome or other Antichristian assemblies These things are confirmed by Mat. 18.17 20. with 28.20 1. Cor. 5.4.5 and 12.27 1.2 Rom. 12.5 Heb. 12.22.28 Mat. 5.14 Phil. 1.1.5 Act. 2.41.42.47 17.4 The latter is also confirmed with sundry scriptures and reasons expressed in our foresayd Apologie Against this their former profession these men now thus write 1. Where find we in the scriptures that God hath thus layd upon the people without officers to excōmunicate where is the precept for it which be the examples of it or what are the grounds requiring bearing it out I answer 1. First as their manner is they would put others to prove that which by others and themselves hath been proved and approved and is not as yet by them or any taken away It is easy for any to dispute and trouble men after this manner 2.
say our controversie was about a Church established with officers things concerning people without officers are left to further consideration I answer true it is they sought alwayes to hide their errors and to put off things which pressed them to further consideration and the Elders having gott the Churches power into their hands they lysted not to scan the peoples right But we were necessarily drawn to controvert this point two wayes first because their errour did eat out the very constitution of the Church wherof they vvere as shal after be manifested Secondly because it vvas by themselves acknovvledged that vvhatsoever povver the people hav before is not to be takē away by their officers this therfore vvas an argument that manifested the evil vvhich lurketh in their nevv doctrine And vvho can soundly discuss any question if they look not to the foundation as Christ sayd to the Pharisees from the beginning it was not so 6. Finally vvheras vve shevved hovv their doctrine overthroweth the constitution of their Church as being vvithout povver from Christ they say First it were worth the knowing by whom the first man or two men of this church were received in and by what power I ansvver it is true they say and pray them therfore to shevv by vvhat povver their church began if they vvould have men acknovvledge it for true and planted by the povver of Christ Othervveise they must renounce their estate and begin a nevv As for ours it is shevved in our published vvritings vvhich if they can let them disprove as in Treat of the ministerie against M. Hildersh p. 73.74 Apologie p. 44.45.46.47 2. Secondly they say by our baptisme as also by accord in the truth we ar bound to communion in any thing lawful as God giveth occasion and opportunity I answer 1. they here turn from the question we speak of constitution of a particular church they tel us of communion by baptism and accord in the truth which extendeth to al churches in the world and to Saincts that ar not gathered and constituted into any particular church We speak of a church with power to receiv in and cast out though it have no officers they touch not this point unless they closely grant us the question to the overthrow of their opinion For if they yeild such power and practise to be a lawful thing in the communion of al such as ar baptised or doo accord in the truth they refute themselves if not al men may see how they seek to divert from the matter in hand 2. Secondly by their baptism they mean not onely the true baptisme in Christs church but the false baptisme in Antichrists as the article expresseth and after we ar to scan which if it be according to the scriptures which they cite the one baptisme that by one spirit baptiseth al into one body then are they returned into the cōmmunion and body of Antichrists synagogue if the church of Rome be it are bound to communicate even with Friers and Iesuites in any thing lawful as God giveth occasion and that is I suppose to hear them when they preach nothing but the truth or to pray with them when they in spirit pray to God in Christ c. I would be loth to wrong them their own words lead me to this if I gather amyss let them pardon me shew their meaning plainly for he that dooth truth cōmeth to the light 3. Thirdly without baptisme there may be a Church entred into covenant with God one with an other as all Israel passed into the covenant renued by Moses when al the men under 40. yeres old were uncirsed besides al the women 3. They thirdly say it is playn and undenyable that to chuse or give voices in election is not a part of goverment c. but an interest power right and libertie that the Saincts out of office have and should use c. I answer 1. First this is playn and undenyable so long as it pleaseth them not to deny it but if they change their mind in this point to morow as they have doon in the former about the peoples power to excōmunicate then we shal hear as we did before wher find we in the scriptures that God hath thus layd on the people without officers to make electiō where is the precept for it which be the examples of it c. They tel us it is playn but not one scripture is brought to shew it yet is it needful seing they know the Papists and other Prelates deny such elections without officers The Prelates wil shew them sundry examples wher it was doon by the counsel direction and government of officers as Act. 1.15.21 22. 6.2 3. 14 23 1. Tim. 3 1. 14.15 Tit. 1.5 but not one place where a people without officers attempted such a work Wherefore wee wish our opposites not to deal so slenderly as to tel men it is playn and undeniable so to leav it for we make no doubt but the sound proof of this point wil disproov their former errour 2. Secondly we have upon their bare word that to give voices in election of officers is no part of government we pray them in their next to shew whether then to give voices for deposition of unworthy officers be a part of government as also how they prove that to give voices for the reciving in and putting out of members in the Church is a part of government more than the other 3. Thirdly the reader may observ their covert cariage of this point whiles they speak but of giving voices in election but what say they about giving power of administration to the ministers who must doo that or how had these men that but by the people And if the people have power in the name of Christ to say to the elected Pastor Take thou authority to preach the word c. or in any other terms to give him pastoral office which had none before I hope they wil not deny but if that Pastor afterward proov a Wolf the same people may put him out of al his pastoral office and if they have that power why also may they not put him quite out of the fold and Church by the power of Christ that is excommunicate him And if it be not lawful for a people to give authority of Ministerie unto a man how then do these administer which renounced some of them their former office and preisthood given by the Prelates and as private men received a nue caling and ordination others from private estate were constituted Elders by the people Is this Ministerie now from heaven or from men 4. Lastly they say seing their doctrine overthroweth not the constitution of the Church of Jsrael nor of the primitive Churches it cannot therfore overthrow the constitution of their church or of any that is accordingly built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets c. I answer this in
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
multitude of them could not perform it which order al churches now are bound to keep for ever And this which I have sayd the words of the text in their natural sense doo confirm the sonns of Jsrael shal put their hands upon the Levites shewing that they did it not by title of Magistracie but as Israelites So also in the other case when the Elders imposed hands on the syn offring Levit. 4 14 15. it was not a work peculiar to the ecclesiastical Elders for afterward King Hezekiah with the Congregation layd their hands upon the sacrifices Which thing also he did not by peculiar right of his kingly office but as he was principal of the Church of Israel for when they had no King the Church might doo it by the next cheif mēbers an unbeleeving King reigning over them might not doo it Also if any people returning from captivity had wanted Magistrates they were not deprived therby of offring sacrifice for their publik syn For if every private man might impose hands on his own sacrifice as Levit. 1.3.4 how can we think that the whole company synning the cheif fathers might not have imposed hands according to that rule Lev. 4.15 Yea the word Elders dooth not alwayes though often mean Magistrates or ministers by office but sometime ancient in yeres The other things which they allege about the varietie of phrase as they doo not disprove the thing forespoken so make they nothing for them They say such as are caled Elders Lev. 9.1 are caled children of Jsrael Lev. 9 3. this is true for who ever doubted but the Elders were sonns of Jsrael as wel as the other people But if they bring it to prove the Elders or Officers onely to be there intended I deny it the whole chapter after manifesteth the publick church to be meant For when Aaron had offred his own syn-offring and burnt-offring then offred he the peoples syn-offring and their burnt-offring and their peace offrings and after lifted up his hands to the people and blessed them This was one of the most publik assemblies and who would ever dream that the Elders onely were here expiated by sacrifice and blessed of the Preist they might even as wel say the Elders onely did keep and eat the passover cōparing Exod. 12.3 with Exod. 12.21 where one verse sayth al the congregation and an other al the Elders The next exception of the Septuagints translating the sonns of Jsrael in Greek the Eldership is not of weight though the translators should have minded as doo their Commenters But they purposed not hereby to exclude the people any more then in 1. Sam 8.4 they would exclude the Elders where when the original text sayth the Elders of Jsrael came to Samuel they translate it in Greek the men of Jsrael So the Elders of Jabesh 1. Sam. 11 3. the Greek caleth the men of Jabesh Of like weight are their observations about the word Church or Congregation which being but once turned in Greek the synedrion they skore it up as making for their Eldership but though it be once twise and thrise turned laos plethos ochlos that is the people and multitude they can let them places pass and say never a word Moreover touching this place in hand Num. 8 10. the Greek version as wel as the Hebrue it self sayth the children of Jsrael shal impose their hands vpon the Levites so that their exception here standeth them in no sted Finally they observ the clauses in the article according to the rules in Gods word and by due order c. which as they bind them to shew by scriptures that the people not being in office may choose their officers as is proved there in Apol. p. 46.47 so they bind us to shew like rules practise or warrant of ordination deposition and excommunication I answer first if a man would except as they doo he might ask them how they prove that people without officers may by due order choose any into office for in the scriptures which they stand upon al things were doon by the counsel ordering and goverment of the officers even the election it self Act. 6.2.3 1.15 22. 14.23 c. Secondly their new devise of having their ordination successively frō Rome is neyther according to the rules in Gods word nor by due order nor by any example in Israel no though Rome were as true a church as they now plead her to be For that the ministers of one particular church should ordeyn officers for an other church is more unorderly then when every church ordeyneth them in it self the Apostles and Evangelists had their offices in al churches so have not Pastors Magistrates are limited within their own precincts and the Maior or Bailive of one corporation hath no jurisdiction in another So should al ministers be bounded within their own charges and not chalenge catholik authoritie in al churches as dooth the lawless usurping man of syn Antichrist Thirdly the scriptures and reasons in our Articles and Apologie serv also for the ordination and deposition of ministers though it please these men to pass them over in silēce because they are too heavy for them to lift In our Apologie pag. 43. there are 6. arguments and in pag. 47. six other arguments confirmed by scriptures as the reader may see til our opposites answer thē we think it needless to set down more Fourthly we hold it necessary that al church actions be orderly caried eyther by the officers if ther be any or by the Magistrates as in Israel or by the Fathers of families or the most excellent in gifts requested therunto by the congregation this we firmly mainteyn against al popular confusion and disorder whatsoever And M. Iohnson himself hath expressly defended this truth heretofore against M. Iaakob that where people first come to the order of Christ imposition of hands is to be doon by the fittest among them being therunto appointed by the rest of the church alleging Num. 8.10 though now he useth for defense of his contrary error the Iesuites answers For even so dooth Bellarmine turn away the reasons of the protestantes saying the people did never ordeyn nor create ministers nor give them any power but onely named and designed them Act. 1. 6. The 4. point of difference in the Letter 4. WE had learned that none may execute a ministery but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand Ministers unto such offices and in such manner as God hath prescribed in his word But now these wil execute a ministerie which have not rightly been caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers according to their own account and doctrine which hold as before that a people without officers have no warrant from God to make or depose Ministers With this they joyn out of the printed copy 3. The 29. article of our Confession as also our Apologie
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
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-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
wicked spirit c. The Pope maketh his boast that he is the High Preist he is of equal power with Peter he cannot err he is head and spouse of the Church c. Mahomet braggeth also that he is that great Prophet the promised Messias the Apostle of both testaments c. He is wel contented that Christ be an holy Prophet and a most worthy creature yea the word of God the sowl of God and the spirit of God conceived of the Holy Ghost but he wil in no case grant him to be the Son of God nor that he dyed here for mans redemtion Both these two mainteyners of mischief allow Moses law the Psalter the Prophets and the Gospel yea they commend them advance them sing them read them honour them c. yet wil they have their own filthy lawes preferred above them the Pope his execrable decrees and Mahomet his wicked Alkoran ells wil they murther men without measure Thus though they outwardly appear very vertuous yet are they the malignant Ministers of Satan denying the Lord which hath redeemed them By these may wee mesure their inferiour Merchants having their livery mark I might allege many moe especially of the Martyrs in England which dyed in this testimonie against that false whore but it is ynough that Gods word dooth condemn her as before is manifested The 6. point of difference in the letter WE had learned that al particular congregations are by al means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in al needful affaires of the Church as mēbers of one body in the common faith yet here when differences had arisen about our common faith and could not amongst our selves be cōposed they would not desire nor consent to have desired the help of our sister Church at Leyden although it were instantly urged by many members that their assistance should be had With this they joyn the 9. out of the printed copy to the effect of the former Against this they except 1. that though for some reasons they absteyned from desiring it or sending for them or giving their consent so to doo yet they were content to permitt it which was not a denying of the practise of it as the printed copy objecteth c 1 Cor. 7.6 Deut. 24.1 I answer the scriptures on which we grounded that article being Act. 15. chap. 1. Cor. 14.33.36 shew an other manner of dutie then a permission For when dissention had arisen in the church of Antioch they ordeyned that some should goe up to Ierusalem unto the Apostles Elders about the question And the messengers were sent forth of the Church and were received by the Church at Ierusalem the Apostles and Elders who came togither with one accord after discussing and agreement wrote to the Church of Antioch what had seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them And Paul sheweth a reason of such mutual entercourse when he sayth Came the word of God out from you eyther came it unto yow onely 1 Cor. 14.36 Wherfore seing the word of God was come unto the Church of Leyden as unto us and considering the practise that was in the APOSTOLIKE Churches heretofore and our profession to walk according it is but a sory answer to say they would permitt of it if others did it as Moses permitted the bill of divorse for the hardnes of mens harts and as Paul spake a thing by permission not by commandement For we think those Apostolical practises Act. 15. to be in sted of commandements unto us Philip. 3.17 And our Confession noteth it as a dutie even by al means convenient By this al may see how weak a defense they make for their proceedings Their reasons folow 1. that the other Church we were in peace togither if by this occasiō the peace should be brokē they should not say they sēt for thē I answer this exceptiō wil lye against al Churches in the world that are at peace and might have been objected by the contentious at Antiochia Act. 15. and wil be colour to cut off al use of that practise and of our former profession 2. That the Church of Leyden was in the same error with us who desired their help I answer this also might the troublers of the Church in Antioch have objected as colourably against the Church of Ierusalem Act. 15. it is a barr to cut of al help from other Churches Yea if any heresie be raysed by the officers in a Church contrary to their former faith they may thus except against al Churches unless they wil fal into the same errors with them 3 Thirdly they allege former experience with others I answer we never had experiēce of the like M. Smyth in deed leaving the truth and broaching his heresie against the translated scripture would needs publish it in our Church It is one thing to raise up a new error as did he an other thing to mainteyn the ancient faith as did the Church of Leyden with us So that which they fourthly allege is but a pretence that al wil make be their errors never so new they that urged circumcision Act. 15. could plead the anciēt practise in Israel farr better then these our opposites can doo for the power of their Eldership 4 Their next exception about a letter written by some to that church a copy wherof was desired but not granted c. is an occasion taken by that accident But they know that before that letter was written they signified their unwillingnes to intreat their help and now were glad that they had gotten a show to hold them off 2. For the Letter mentioned I did think it was meet they should have sent it and so I wish they had though they shewed reasons of their not doing it for the present but have since that time sent thē a copy 5. They next object my own subscribing of those letters to Leyden c ask whether I denyed the practise of that article c. I answer first I had sundry times signified in publick my mind that their help should be desired in the end if we could not agree but we would first use al means among our selves so I never was of their mind who refused absolutely to desire their help this they wel know Secondly I subscribed those Letters because I thought it meet that a copy of the foresayd letter should have been sent as before I signified Thirdly for the last letter which to my remembrance I consented to they know I refused to subscribe it til some words which implied an absolute denyal of requesting their help were put out and changed Fourthly when no means among our selves could end the strife they know how I both intreated them to consent they might be sent for when they would not my self went and obteyned their cōming In deed I was loth to trouble them without urgent cause with my brethren
now opposite I sought to nourish peace it may be more then I should which now they thus return upon me and I therfore shal bear and make use of it for hereafter 6. Of their reasoning with them when they came from Leyden it is not to the point in hand Yet how unwilling they were even to admit of it all present then did see and the Elders of the church of Leyden as occasion is can testifie But I forbear to insist upon particulars which are not so profitable for the readers 7. Finally they ask why we did not desire the counsel and help of the Dutch French churches I answer first these our opposites with us had before dealt with them against their errors in this and other points so farr as we could and ended with them What reason had we now to call for them to defend that errour which our whole church had condemned Secondly they could not discuss the coÌ„troversie in our English tongue to the understanding of our Congregation novv troubled no nor of al our Elders Thirdly these that thus object did not to my remembraÌ„ce desire any such thing if they had I should not for my part have refused so absolutely as did they But thus have they turned every stone to see if they could find any colour for vvithstanding the help of the Church of Leyden vvith vvhat vveight and equitie let the prudent judge Of the 7. articles which they obiect unto us as contrarie to our former profession They pretend more sound and better observations that they could send and spread out against us Let us bring them to the trial 1. WHeras say they wee had learned and professed that Christ was the onely King and Lord of his Church and had left unto it among men but a ministerial government and that all the multitude of the members the saincts ought to obey submit to the Eldership in every Church Now we have lately been taught that the people as Kings have power one over an other and that the saincts being Kings are superior to their officers because the order of Kings is the highest order or estate in the Church and so an order superiour unto and above the order of the officers or Eldership Also that the church may in relation to the officers being servants therin be called a Lord c. I answer first our former profession touching Christ the onely King and Lord we hold it firm in all points as before and never had so much as a thought to reason against it Secondly for the ministerial government of the Church by the Officers we never disputed against it but doo stil acknowledge the whole Church and every member is to submit unto their ministration in the Lord. Our coÌ„troversie was about the Churches power as we have before manifested Thirdly for the people being Kings we neyther taught nor doo teach otherweise then as we alwayes professed namely that they are a royal Preisthood made by Christ unto God both Kings and Preists and that reign on the earth not one over an other as they speak but one with another in the fellowship of the faith of Christ. That every Christian is a King and Preist unto God to spie out censure and cut down syn as it ariseth with that two edged sword that proceedeth out of Christs mouth These things heretofore both we and they professed which now they would injuriously turn to be against Christ the onely King and against the ministerial goverment of his officers such collections as we think our common adversaries that make conscience of their words would be ashamed for to make Touching Mr. Robinsons book which they allege I have desired himself to answer which he was willing to doo and hath written as foloweth Mr Robinsons answer Because Mr Iohnson hath in his Answer touching the division expressly taxed my book against M. Bernard I think it meet to insert a breif answer to his exceptions as followeth He there writeth thus Wheras we had learned and professed that Christ was the onely King and Lord of his Church and had left unto it among men but a ministerial government and that al the multitude of the members the saincts ought to obey and submitt to the Eldership in every Church Now we have lately been taught that the people as Kings have power one over another and that the saincts being Kings are superiour to their officers because the order of Kings is the highest order in the Church c. Also that the Church may in relation to the officers being servants therein be caled a Lord c. And for this he quoteth my book p. 217 225. adding that I advance the people one above another as Kings intitle them with kingly and lordly power in the outward policie and affayrs of the church by which as the Prelates on the one hand so the people on the other hand become idols Acknowledging the former and latter part of that he sayth we have formerly professed I except against the midle clause of the sentence in sundry respects First in that he drawes the question which is about the power of Christ in the Church common to all to the government and guydance of the Church in the use of this power which is peculiar to the officers which may also more clearly appear to him that reades the places he quotes in the margent wherein he concludeth though more covertly a double vntruth the one that because the government of the Officers is onely ministerial and not Kingly therefore there is no Kingly power left vnto the Church or communicated with the Saynts for the suppressing of sin the other that because the Officers are the onely governours of the Church and so by vs acknowledged therefore they onely have the power of Christ. And thus he would closely wrap up the Churches power in the officers government and not be seen in it For the clearing then of the difference between government and power it must be considered that by government may eyther be vnderstood the wholâ—â—â—â—â—ensation of Christs Kingly office whither inward or outward whither by himself or vp others and so this power we speak of is comprehended vnder it as a part thereof Or it is taken more strictly for the guidance and ordering of the Church in her Publique affayres and the administration and exequution of them and so it apperteyneth to the Officers and is clean another thing then the power in question For the proving of this difference The Apostle Paul wrytes to the whole Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous man by the power of the Lord Iesus Christ. This Power he would have the whole Church to vse but yet would not have the whole Church to become governours nor to take vpon them government but the officers onely by which it appeareth that government and power are divers things I do further adde what if the whole Eldership
should be charged by 2. or 3. witnesses with heresy blasphemy or the like crime and complaynt thereof be made to the Church Mr. Iohnson in this his Answer coÌ„fesseth that the Church he would be asked whither womeÌ„ and childreÌ„ or no may depose al her officers joyntly persisting in transgression though in the same place he mince the matter too small in saying they may depose or refuse them separate from theÌ„ and againe refuse them Wheras to depose and to separate from or refuse are very divers For 1. to separate from the Eldership requires no power but libertie and therfore may be doon by one man or woman upon just occasion so cannot deposition be upon any occasion but by the Church for which deposition of al the officers of the kingdom of Christ the church a man would think the power of Christ were needful and that by it such a judgment should passe out Besides the Church in deposing her officers dooth not separate her self from them to speak properly but them from her Wel to take the least libertie he wil give the people If they may separate from al their officers persisting in transgression then they must receive the complaynt of sin which is orderly brought and by sufficient witnesses against them and must examine and judge the matter Now if it argue power to receive a complaynt of sin against one brother and to examine and judge it and so to censure him by excoÌ„munication if ther be cause dooth it not also argue power to receav a complaynt of sin agaynst all the officers to examine and judg it and so to censure them as their is cause by deposition But what now shall the Elders do accounting themselves innocent and wrougfully accused whilst the Church thus examineth things and judgeth of them Shall they surâ—ease their government and fayl the Church in so great a â—eed and would M. Iohnson so practise or are they not now to do a speciall work of theyr government not onely in preserving order but in directing instructing and guiding the Church by the wod of God in her whole procedings By which it appeareth that judging of sin and power to suppresse it is one thing and government for the right use and ordering of the same another thing The officers which are judged do govern and the bodâ— of the Church which judgeth them is governed by them We may yet further see this difference even in the Lordly governments of this world and that both in Peace and Warre In the civile government of our own land then the which none in the world in the right vse of it is more excellent when a malefactor comes to be arraigned at the Assises or Sessions he is to be tryed by his country a competent company where all cannot possibly passe vpon him which they cal the Iury whose power and sentence is of such force as that the Lord Cheif justice himself and all the Bench with him cannot proceed agaynst it eyther for the quitting or coÌ„demning of the person and yet the Bench governeth the whole action and the Iury is by them according to law to be governed I wish the Elders with whoÌ„ we have to do would allow the body of the church the like liberty at their Sitting as they call it that is at their spirituall Sessions or rather that they would better consider that they are as Ministers to stand and serve and not as Lords to sit and judge Lastly when an army is sent against the Kings and their own enemies the government is in the Captains and Officers but so is not al the power for fighting with and subduing of their and their kings enemies Neyther is all the power of the church which is an army with banners in the officers alone for the the subduing of Christs and their enemies sin and Sathan though the government be Thus may the difference plainly be seen betwixt power and government in the opening of which I have been the longer because 1. I think it a mayn ground of our controversie 2. Our opposites do much insult over us as speaking contradictions when we yeeld the officers all the goverment and yet deny theÌ„ al the power 3. The weaker sort ar much misled and caried away thorough want of discerning this difference I proceed to a second thing and affirm that Christ hath not left to the church amoÌ„g men onely a ministerial power which he confusedly calleth government as he sayth He hath left the word of God and gospell in the church which is lively and mighty in operation peircing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit c. ruling and reigning in and over the very hearts and lives of men binding their consciences and bringing into captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ. I know men can onely minister this power whither in doctrine or discipline as they speak But it is one thing to say the power is onely ministerial and another thing that men can onely minister it For men may be the ministers onely of that power which is kingly and Lordly in it self and so over men as this is So the saints can only minister their kingly power by participatioÌ„ of Christs aÌ„noynting as one speciall grace they have received of which more hereafter Now in laying down the things wherwith he chargeth me he alters my words misinterprets my meaning and conceals that which I have writteÌ„ and he read in my book for the explaning of the same And first he sayth I have taught that the people are as Kings one over another that I advance them one over another as Kings and above their governours intitling theÌ„ with Kingly Lordly power that is goverment as he explaines himself in the outward policie of the Church I doo not in these places or any other advance the people one over another much lesse over their officers in the outward policy of the Church that is as he explains his meaning in the government of it I doo every where profess the Officers the governours and the people the governed by them Neyther do I any where affirm that the people ar Kings or as kings one over another as he chargeth me I say in one place that the saynts are not Kings for themselves alone but for their brethren also as they are not Preists onely for themselves but for their brethren And in another place that every one of the faithful is a King not onely to him self but to every other member as he is a Preist and a Prophet c. Here is a King one for another and one to another but not one over another much lesse over the officers for government in the external policie of the Church The playn and simple truth then is whatsoever men eyther mistake of ignorance or suggest of an evil mind that we do not cal the saynts Kings in respeâ—t of outward order and government as though they were to order
and govern the Church in her publick affaires which is the work of the Officers but as they are partakers of Christs kingly anoynting by his spirit common to the head and the members and so Kings by participation and indowed with kingly power for the coÌ„quering and subduing of the power of sin and Sathan not onely in themselves but in their brethren also by the sword of the spirit the word of God which they are to minister unto them as all other graces in their order And this meaning being held it may safely be taught that they are over one another that is to watch one over another and so as kings to conquer their spirituall enemies one in another mutually But I wil rather insist vpoÌ„ mine own words for or to one another as being most fit to shew that coÌ„munioÌ„ of the saints in this grace as in the rest which he also in all equity should have done And thus I will prove this royall coÌ„munion of the saynts And for them that make themselves merry herewith let them suffer me to speak and when I have spoken let them mock on And first it must be observed that the place and scriptures which M. Iohnson notes in our Confession to prove Christ the onely King of his Church prove him as wel and that truely to be the onely Preist Prophet of his Church And if notwithstanding his sole prophecie and preisthood peculiar to him as the head the saynts may be Prophets and Preists as members by coÌ„munication they may also be Kings by coÌ„munication notwithstanding his peculiar imperiall power And so the scriptures testifie that he hath made vs kings and preists unto God even his Father and so our Father But it wil be answered that Christ hath made vs Kings to resist subdue and conquer our spiritual enemies Sin Sathan this world and our worldly lusts by the sword of the spirit the word of God and the work of the spirit in and by the same I grant it and therupon conclude that since Gods people are also by the same weapons and means to resist and subdue the power of sin in their brethren they are also kings in the same respecâ— unto them The saynts are Christians and that for and in respect one of another as members vnder Christ one of another and therfore Kings For to be a Christian for another is nothing els but by participation of Christs annoynting to be a Preist Prophet and King for another Ad vnto this that whatsoever grace any member of the body hath received it is for the use and edification of the rest and so in order to be administred by him as a good disposer of the grace of God And must this royal grace then which the saynts have received find no time nor place for the dispensation of it vnto others When a brother comes to subdue and maâ—e conquest of some spiritual enemy or sin appearing in his brother eyther privately or publiquely in his place and order he dooth this as a fellow member and Christian and so by one of his three states and indowments of preist prophet or king for he hath no office wherein he administreth but by neyther of the two former therfore by the latter and as a king and so made by Christ. Lastly the people are by M. Iohnsons own graunt to choose their officers as also upon just occasion to depose them And this as the former they doo not as Preists or Prophets and therfore by their kingly indowment from and vnder Christ. And thus much to prove the saynts in their coÌ„munion as Preists to offer up the prayers one of another and Prophets to instruct one another so also partakers of the kingly dignity of Christ as his meÌ„bers for the suppressing and conquering of sin appearing one in another in that order which Christ hath left And where do I in al this as is imputed to me advance the people as others do the Prelates and make them Idols Do I give them power to prescribe and appoint other formes of Gods worship offices of Ministery canons ceremonies or holy dayes then Christ hath prescribed and appointed to bind the conscience by urging subscription ex animo to their own inventions or to loose conscience by dispensations to sin as of pluralities non residencies and the like or that one man should set up and pul down ministers and excommunicate and absolve both ministers and people by his sole authority If another man should thus have charged Mr IohnsoÌ„ when he mainteyned the same libertie of the brethren if nor greater which I now do though it may be not under the same terms he would have pronounced it blasphemy in him B passing by his terms of provocatioÌ„ and reproach I come to another exception which is that I make the order of saynts superiour unto the order of officers to wit in it self as I there explayne my meaning and not in respect of government as he traduceth me I know that he which guideth ordereth and directeth another is in that his art and work superiour vnto him that is so guided ordered and directed So is the Pilote in guiding the ship superiour and above all the passengers in it though the King and his Councell so is the Physition in ordering the kings body as is also the meanest guide in leading and directing him and his army Royall in unknown places So are the officers superiour to the Church in their art or work of government which is the opening and applying of the scriptures to the use and direction of the Church but as this is done by them in an order of service and not of Lordship so I judge and call them inferiour And so in my book I make them equall in their persons as saynts superiour in the word they minister and in the place of God not so in their order of servants wherin they minister but inferiour My reasons there brought to prove mine affirmation bycause he here medles not with I also forbear in this place to confirm onely a few words of one of them upon which the next and last exception dependeth Which is that the order of Church-officers is inferiour to the order of the saints bycause their order is an order of service and servants unto the saynts the Church I know Kings may be sayd to serve their people and so to become their servants but this is onely in respect of their love towards them and care for them but not in respect of their order which is a Lordship and Kingship by which they reign over their people as their servants and subjects The like may be sayd of Christ himself as that he served his disciples and became as a servant c. And for that it must be considered that as in the things wherin he did thus serve and become as a servant he did in his love make himself inferiour to his disciples and preferred
ministred until the Pastors or Teachers were chosē ordeyned into their office now it is held by some that seing al the holy things of God are the churches people without officers are a church therfore they may without officers have the use of the sacraments and al the holy things of God and consequently may receive in by baptisme confirm by the Lords supper cast out by excommunication c. And in this writing sent unto yow it may be observed how they inferr that people without officers may cast out and therfore may receiv in ther being one power for both I answer they wrong us and abuse their readers 1. There is not to my knowledge as before I testified any one man amōg us that held or holdeth that people without officers may have the use of the sacraments but we all continue in the same profession that we made before 2. It is frawd and abuse of the reader and injurie to me when they first speak of receiving in by baptisme and then allege from my letter that the people without officers may receiv in as if they would bear the world in hand I therfore hold they may baptise Wheras first the scripture sheweth that persons uncircūcised and consequently unbaptised may pass into the Church-covenant of the Lord Deut. 29.10.11.12.13 compared with Jos. 5.2.5 Secondly the children of the faithful are born members of the Church and are in the covenant before they are baptised Thirdly a man excommunicated may be received into the Church yet not by baptising of him And 4. we heretofore in our Confession when we denyed the sacraments in a Church without officers yet professed they had then power to receiv in members Wherin now are we contrary to our former faith Doo not these things rather show how they seek to make strife where none is The 5. article We had learned that none may usurp or execute a ministerie but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers unto such offices and in such maner as God hath prescribed in his word now it is held by some that people out of office may execute al the works duties of the ministerie for baptisme Lords supper censures c. And these men in their second exceptiō here write there is one power for receiving in and casting out and that people without officers may doo both as is observed before I answer their frawd and wrongful dealing is also observed before and here to make their syn the more remarkable they proclaym it the second time Of ministring the sacraments and of receiving in and casting out of members and against usurping or executing a ministerie without due caling we hold as alwayes heretofore they repete the same things but to their own further blame for our professed enemies doo not ordinarily more wrest our words The 6. article 6. We learned and used heretofore to apply to our estate and use the things that the scriptures teach concerning the governours and people in Israel Now we ar excepted and opposed against if we doo so with these exceptions and the like that they had civil authority and government which the church hath not that they could not in Israel forgive one an others syn as we can now that the people now have more power then in Israel because now we folow Christ into heaven wheras the people might not folow the high Preist into the most holy place c. I answer the right applying of our estate to Israel we alwayes have and stil doo approve but these mens wrested proportions and making the Church in Mat. 18. to be the same with the Iewes Synedrion or Sessions of civil Magistrates we doo reprove and so have doon in our more ancient writings Refut of M. Giff. pag. 76. c. so that no new thing is doon by us 2. That private men forgave not synns in Israel so absolutely touching the Church order or politie as Christians doo now is evident by the Law which bound the offender not onely unto repentance and faith in Christ as also to confess his syn and satisfy his neighbour offended but withal to bring a trespass offring to the Preist the minister of the Church that so the Preist making an attonement for him before the Lord it should be forgiven him Levit. 6.2.5.6.7 Now under the Gospel the Law is if thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him Luk. 17.3 neyther is such a man bound to goe to a minister that he may pray for or forgive him as the Papists by proportion doe gather 3. That th'Apostle also sheweth a difference of our Church estate from the Iewes politie Heb. 9.7.8.9 c. 10.19.20 compared with Gal. 4.1.2.3 c is manifest neyther can our opposites deny it onely they cast stombling blocks in the readers way saying thus 1. what if any other would say that Elders and Kings now should have more power then they had in Jsrael because they now folow Christ into Heaven c. To omit their yll framing of the reason for their most advantage I answer they that would so say should shew their ignorance or a worse humour Because Christs Kingdom is not of this world neyther medled he with Magistrates power but left it as it was authorized of God his Father and not subordinate to his Mediatorship as before is shewed and therfore Magistracie hath neyther more nor less by him now then in Israel and former ages But his Church and so the Magistrates therin as they are Christians are advanced to a further degree of grace then they were in under the rudiments of the Law Gal. 4.3.4 c. 2. The Second block is a marginal note that yet the people were typically caried in by the high Preist in the precious stones on his shoulders and brest as the most holy place it self was a type of Heaven I answer this is true and confirmeth that which I sayd for if into the earthly sanctuary the people could not freely enter in their own persons at any time but figuratively although they had so much as by faith in Christ did save them then is our estate now as touching the outward Church order and politie better then theirs which are not restreyned from any place whither the ministers of the Gospel may them selves enter but we are the Preists of God and of Christ and may be bold to enter into the holy place into the type wherof onely the high Preist under the Law might enter sometimes and the people not at al personally And in every place we may offer incense unto the name of God and a pure oblation Mal. 1.11 and are freed frō those legal prohibitions touch not tast not handle not and other worldly rudiments under which Israel in their childs estate were in bondage Gal 4.3 Therfore the Apostle which sheweth their estate and ours to
be one in substance concerning faith in Christ unto salvation Hâ—b 11. sheweth also great differences between their condition and ours touching the clear manifestation of Gods grace and the outward politie of the Church Heb. 9. 10. 12. Gal. 4. Finally these things we never intended or extended to any further rights or liberties of the people now then we find evidently taught us by the doctrine and practise of th'Apostles that if in any thing we miss as easily we may in the application of those legal types yet the doctrine confirmed by other playn scriptures remayneth sound and good And such differences between Israel and us we also have put in our more ancient writings Discover pag. 40. 60. Their last note is in effect one with the first shewing how Christ and th'Apostles reasoned wel from the civil state of Israel which we grant Yet I hope they wil not deny but it is possible for other men to reason amyss and to make yll proportions from the common wealth of Israel as doo the Papists and as before is manifested that these our opposites have doon The 7. article 7. We held that the baptism of Rome was as true baptisme as circuÌ„cision in the Apostasie of Israel was true circumcision and needed not to be renounced and repeted Now we were taught that the baptism aforesayd is an Idol and we know al Idols c are to be renounced and rejected Isa. 30.22 and an Idol is nothing in the world 1. Cor. 8.4 so then such baptism is nothing I answer our former profession and writing hath been that circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel could be no true sacrament no true seal of the covenant of Gods favour unto them also that baptism delivered in the false church is no true seal of Gods covenant or true sacrament Mr. Iohnson himself hath defended this very same that in that estate of their Apostasie it could not be a true Sacrament and so for the baptism in Rome not a true but a false sacrament So the contrarietie must be thus heretofore we held it to be a false sacrament but now we were taught it is an Jdol Between these I hope al men of judgment which know what an Jdol meaneth wil think ther is no contradiction But is not this good conveyance for them to say as true baptism as circumcision in the Apostasie of Jsrael was true circumcision wheras we professed of that baptisme as also of that circumcision that it could not be a true sacrament unto them but a false Wil not the judicious reader see that they cast a myst before mens eyes to disgrace the truth which themselves formerly professed As for the consequences I have before answered them and shewed how though the Idol be put away ther need no repeting again of the outward washing and have proved that Antichrist hath turned the Lords baptisme into an Idol as the Iewes did the brazen serpeÌ„t by burning incense to it and that the most conscionable in our own nation have so professed and the Vniversitie of Cambridge printed that the church of Rome transformeth the sacraments yea even Christ and God himself into Jdols But these our opposites are gone from the truth and from themselves herein into the tents of our common adversaries M. Gifford and others who would have concluded hereupon a new outward washing but were refuted by Mr Barrow And Mr Iohnson once professed that he thought he should never have seen any more absurd writing then M. Giffards though now he reasoneth like him He also told the Oxford Doctors that to hold the popish church to be a true church having a true ministerie and true sacraments or els that they are unbaptised and must admitt of the Anabaptists rebaptisation are nought els but gross errours and notorious absurdities Yet loe how he now presseth us with the same things and passeth over our reasons rendred heretofore without answering them as is meet Of the conditions of peace by our Opposites refused and broken HItherto wee have heard the particulars wherin they are gone from their former profession again the articles which they have insinuated against us Now foloweth the peace which notwithstanding the former things wee desired to reteyn with them The first 1. Before our parting we offred that notwithstanding our differences of judgmeÌ„t we would continue togither if our former practise might be reteyned but this was refused Their answer hereto is Which is as if they should say they would have continued with vs if wee would have continued in errour and evil so found and acknowledged by us suffering the ordinance of God touching the Eldership to be troden under foot the Elders to be despised and abused by the people and the whole Church to be continually subiect to contentions and scandals Our reply Here first observe how they can not deny but thus we offred them and yet they would bear the world in hand we left them for their understanding and exposition of Mat. 18 17. They might have kept their vnderstanding both of that and other scriptures if the Churches practise had not been altered Secondly how doo their people yet bear themselves others in hand that their practise is not changed but all things continue with them in that respect as before Eyther their Elders dissemble with them or they with others according to the Philosophers doctrine that in such changes it behooveth men to feighn and counterfeyt the contrary Thirdly the answer is evil injurious to the truth people of God for his ordinance touching the Eldership is not troden vnder foot the Elders despised c. by the holy order of the Church judging synners as the Apostle teacheth and governed in all actions by the officers which was our former practise These are but contumelies such as Papists and lovers of Prelacie have layd upon the saynts heretofore and upon such pretenses have excluded the people from choosing their ministers for avoyding such tumults and uprores as the primitive Church they say was afflicted with Fourthly what if some persons have miscaried themseves as can not be denyed have not some of the Elders also doon the like And shall the Church because of the abuses tyrannies heresies which their Elders have in all ages brought in refuse to have any moe Elders no more may the Elders refuse to have the people to hear and judge causes of publick syn with them because of the disorder and unrulynes of some whom the people have been as willing to reprove and censure as the Elders themselves As for the Church subject continually to contentions and scandals c. it is most true by the Elders means for to let pass what we have seen among our selves let all histories be looked it wil appear the Church hath never more abounded with contentions and scandals then when al power was in the Ministers hands and the people excluded Yea
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
to consider our estate and to repent and yeild to the truth and way of God which we had refused oppugned I ansvver first this manifesteth their minds to be farr from peace vvith vs vvhatsoever they pretended unless vve vvould yeild to their innovation and prelacie Secondly this reason if it be good serveth asvvel for them that should live at Leyden as at Amsterdam unless they vvould permit us there to oppugn the truth and vvay of God as they intitle their errours Thirdly this evil being fouÌ„d in theÌ„selves that they doo not onely refuse oppugn the truth offred but forsake speak evill of and persecute the truthe and vvay of God vvhich they had long imbraced vvalked in the judgement vvhich they give upon us is most just upon their ovvn heads by the sentence of our Saviour And vve could doo no less vvith these our merciless brethren that vvould nourish no peace vvith us unless eyther vve made shipvvrack of a good conscience or would consent to the undoing of our estates and families but leave them as we did by the Apostles warrant for causing division and offenses contrary to the doctrine which we had learned Rom. 16.17 If their new doctrines be good I shal acknowledge we have greatly synned but if they be the high way to Antichristian promotion and a bereaving of the Church of her right power as we are verily perswaded and doo trust we have so proved it then have they given sentence against themselves and except they repeÌ„t their condemnation shal be just Notwithstanding al their former reasons they after allege that they reversed not their agreement concerning such as would goe and live with the Church at Leyden but onely about such as purposed to return and live here c. I answer by this al may judge whither the fear of God or fleshly policie did more prevayl in them For such of us as would have lived at Leyden they pretend they could find warrant for it in Gods word but shew none they would let them there refuse speak evil of their pretended way of God without leaving any thing to work vpon their consciences c. and yet have peace with them as Christian brethren Onely at Amsterdam these things might not be suffred The Pope himself permitteth Iewes which never received his religion to live in the same citie with him where he is Prince but these our adverse brethren would not indure that wee though we never received their innovations should live in one city with them where they were but strangers What should we have found if they had been Princes of the State Secondly they plainly reversed the agreement as before was shewed when some of our brethren desired their testimonial for to goe to Leyden they refused to give it And we could not tel before we came thither tried whether there would be meanes found for our living there or no. But strange and unheard of cruelty was in these men that would bind us there to remain though we and our families should be undoon being but strangers themselves in this city with us would take upon them so imperiously to banish us the town which the Lords of the city never offred I wish they may find more mercie with the Lord at the day of Christ then they have shewed unto us And wheras they object that when we left them we went not to Leyden to ioyn our selves to that Church according to the agrement c. I answer there never was such agreement that of our selves we should goe but that by them we should be dismissed and this they refused to doo yea and publikly reversed the covenant that themselves had devised and twise confirmed besides that we of our own mind did never desire but onely for peace sake consented to that agreement as before I shewed Neyther was it ever agreed that such onely as would remayn there should goe but it was general for us al. But these their cariages shew what dominion such Elders would exercise over Gods heritage and how unpossible it was for us to have peace with them that would thus turn and wind say and unsay agree of a thing to day and break it to morow Our sowles were wearied with their turnings of devises Finally for our not remayning with them til there was an answer of their Letter from Leyden I answer we taryed with them a good while after their foresayd letter wheras we might upon their breaking of their own solemn agreement added to al their former evils justly have forsaken them Neyther could the Church of Leyden as it seemeth tel what to advise us and therfore gave no answer to their Letters or to ours and because they would have no hand in the breach between us thought better to be silent seing unto what extremitie things were brought And the agreement between the Churches being disanulled articles of warr and discord being proclaymed to us and written of to them delayes onely sought to work our dissipation we know no vvord of God that bindeth us to suffer our selves to come into such bondage vvith men that dayly in their publick doctrines and prayers inveighed aginst the truth they formerly professed vvounded the consciences of the brethren and sought al occasions to dravv men from the right vvay and practise of the Gospel What should vve doo but shake off the dust of our fâ—et against such authors of errours and peace breakers Albeit in these our great troubles and strayts we doubt not but many things through our ignorance and frayltie might be doon amyss for vvhich vve have and doo alvvayes humbly ask mercy of God that even our secret synns may be forgiven us And touching the Church of Leyden vvhose help they refused to desire or consent to havâ— dâ—sired though novv for their advantage as they think they speak of them and have printed some of the passages betvveen them I have desired their Elders testimonie upon this occasion that the ages present and to come may have true information of these matters vvhich is as folovveth The testimonie of the Elders of the Church at Leyden THough we much rather desired to have been mediatours of the peace of our brethren then witnesses of their strife yet may we not because that which we desired could not not be effected by us with draw from that which both may and ought by us to be doon We therfore being desired therunto by Mr. Ainsworth and occasioned by that which both Mr Iohnson and he have writteÌ„ and taking the evils which have befallen others as matter both of humbling and warning to our selves doo signify what we know and have found in our dealings thereabout And first Our special â—alling to intermedle in this vncomfortable busynes was a letter sent vnto vs by some 30. of the brethren there In which mentioning in the beginning of it their long and greevous coÌ„troversy they signified how they had oft desired of the Church to