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
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
the Elders of Jsrael often meant I answer 1. First this being granted it disprooveth not our argument for it may be often so used elswhere and yet not here When we reason from Heb. 1.8 O God thy throne is for ever to prove Christs Godhead the Arians object that Princes and Magistrates are often caled Gods Psal. 82. Exod. 21.6 but is that a sufficient answer 2. Secondly that which these say is here true but not the whole truth 〈◊〉 Elders are meant as principals but not they to be al the congregation which I thus manifest The Levites now to be ordeyned Ministers were taken in stead of al the firstborn of Israel and not in stead of the first-born of the Elders onely Num. 3.40.41 The Levits were now to be offred before the Lord as a shake offring of the children of Israel Num. 8.11 being freely given as a gift of theirs unto the Lord to doo the service of the Tabernacle of the congregation Num. 18.6 8.16 Al offrings were by those that offred them to be presented at the dore of the Tabernacle with imposition of hands Levit. 1. verse 2.3.4 c. For as much therfore as these Levites were offred by al the Congregation and not the Elders or officers onely in sted of their own firstborn it is evident that not the Officers onely but the other people also are here meant Num. 8.10 the rather also for that before verse 9. and after verse 11. others besides Elders are intended 2. Secondly they object how should so many hundred thowsand of Jsrael eyther at once hear or doo the things there spoken of I answer as wel as they heard and did other publik affayrs in the Tabernacle unless they think that al the people never heard or did any thing there When the whole Congregation of Israel synned al the Congregation was to bring a sacrifice Num. 15.24 25 26. wil they ask how so many 100000. could doo it By this reason nothing at al should ever be doon in Israel by the multitude eyther for word prayers sacrifices c. And so by their proportion of the Church now let the people be exempted from word prayers sacraments as wel as from ordination of officers and censuring of synners and let the Eldership be al in al. 3. Thirdly they except if it be sayd some did it for the rest first who were those some but the Elders secondly under whom did they it but under the Lord who set them over the people to minister and govern in his sted I answer first the multitude not the Elders onely were assembled Secondly the multitude and not the Elders onely gave these Levits to the Lord both these are before proved Thirdly for the order and manner of giving Moses governed the action to him it was sayd thou shalt sprinkle water thou shalt bring them before the Lord c. and then the children of Jsrael imposed â—ands this I understand not of every particular man but of some of the cheif for the rest as the Elders heads of tribes cheif fathers of families c. as when aâ— the multitude brought an oblation for their syn the Elders put their hands on the head of the sacrifice Lev. 4.14.15 Accordingly have wee practised in our ordination of officers as these our opposites wel know some of the cheif of the Church the ancientest and fathers of families imposed hands in name of the rest Now to their secoÌ„d questioÌ„ I answer they did it under the Lord and for the other people But this wil not satisfy them for they say they were over the people to minister and govern in Gods sted Exod 20.12 Num. 11.16 30. Deut. 1.9 18. 16.18 17.12 19.12 17. c I answer admit that al they which imposed hands were governours though that cannot be proved neyther dooth honour thy father mother Exod. 20 12. I am sure shew any such thing yet they did not this thing as a work peculiar to their office of goverment neyther do any of the scriptures alledged shew so much but the contrary may be manifested For if they did it as governours then was it eyther as governours ecclesiastical and ministers in the sanctuarie but so were not they for Aaron and his sonns had peculiarly that charge Levit. 8. Or they did it as governours civil Magistrates of the coÌ„mon wealth Which if it be affirmed then first Christian Magistrates now which have civil authoritie equal with the Magistrates of Israel may ordeyn and impose hands on church ministers and so men need not run to Rome to borow a Ministery from Antichrist as many now doo fansie Secondly if civil Magistrates may impose hands on Ministers it wil folow that the Church wanting Magistrates may also by the Fathers of families or other fittest members impose hands For it is not properly a work tyed to the magistrates office 1. because then the churches in the Apostles times wanting Magistrates could not have had Ministers but they had and yet never intruded into the Magistrates office 2. Because the Magistrates sword and office is not subordinate to Christ as he is mediatour and head of the Church for so ther should be no lawful magistrates but Christians meÌ„bers of the church but Magistrates have their office next under God to be heads of the Common weales whether they be meÌ„bers of the church or not as Christ hath his office under God to be head of the Church and these two goverments are so distinct as they neyther may be confounded neyther doo one take in hand the work peculiarly belonging to another Christ professed his kingdom not to be of this world neyther medled 〈◊〉 with the outward sword nor civil controversies neyther on the other side might the Kings of Israel medle with the Preists work to burn incense or the like 3. Because the works of the civil Magistrates office in Israel might be performed by hetheÌ„s when they ruled over that nation as appointing of officers judging of controversies punishment of malefactors c. So Nebuchadnezar the Babylonian lawfully as concerning God reigned over the Iewes and did set over them a governour and put some of them to death for adulterie other evils And the Iewes were bound to obey him and his substitutes and to pray for his coÌ„mon wealth But to the Babylonian Preists they might not be subject Neyther doo I think that our opposites wil say Nebuchadnezar and his Princes might give office of Ministerie or impose hands on the Levites in the sanctuarie Wherfore I conclude that the cheif fathers of Israel imposed hands on the Levites not because of their office of magistracie if they had such an office as if it could not ells have been performed but because they were the principallest members of the Church therfore by order to doo it before al other and in the name of al other which for the
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