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
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
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
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