Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	antioch_n	apostle_n	elder_n	2,819	5	9.5165	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10620	An animadversion to Mr Richard Clyftons advertisement Who under pretense of answering Chr. Lawnes book, hath published an other mans private letter, with Mr Francis Iohnsons answer therto. Which letter is here justified; the answer therto refuted: and the true causes of the lamentable breach that hath lately fallen out in the English exiled Church at Amsterdam, manifested, by Henry Ainsworth.	Ainsworth, Henry, 1571-1622?	1613 (1613)	STC 209; ESTC S118900	140,504	148

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 meÌ„bers of one body in the common faith yet here when differences had arisen about our common faith and could not amongst our selves be coÌ„posed 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 occasioÌ„ the peace should be brokeÌ„ they should not say they seÌ„t for theÌ„ I answer this exceptioÌ„ 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 experieÌ„ce 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 ancieÌ„t 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 theÌ„ 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 coÌ„ming In deed I was loth to trouble them without urgent cause with my brethren

give us a distinction between the sentence of excoÌ„munication 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. ChroÌ„ 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 excoÌ„munication according to the law of God the people should accordingly put it in execution by avoiding the excoÌ„municate 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 excoÌ„municate 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 AaroÌ„ 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 proportioÌ„ 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 childreÌ„ of Christ the church are to put the wicked out froÌ„ 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 coÌ„sented 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 froÌ„ 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

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 evideÌ„tly 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 synedrioÌ„s 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

Secondly in that place of their Treatise on Mat. 18. they quote Mat. 2â— 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 encoÌ„mendeth to his disciples of all nations to the worlds end the observing of all things whatsoever he coÌ„manded 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 excoÌ„municate 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 excoÌ„municate 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 noâ— 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 meÌ„bers 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

beast so commended unto us by these men as doon in the name of the Lord. And as for the Office of ministerie to which they say now it is given M. Iohnson himself haâ—h set down heretofore 33. reasons and differences proving by many scriptures that the popish preists office is not the Christian Pastors office Yea he affirmed the hierarchie of Antichrist to be the most detestable anarchie of Satan that ever was and what now wil imposition of sacrilegious hands in the name of the Lord doo good unto such a detestable ministery 4. Fourthly they say they find not precept example or ground in scripture binding them to the repetition of that ordination I answer it is very true no scripture bindeth men to repete or doo agayn such abominations And we pray them shew us where is there precept example or ground to keep the preisthood and indeleble character of Antichrist But be it as they say what then wil become of their own Ministery for some of them have both received given vnto others reordination are they not in as evil case by their own grounds as the Anabaptists with their rebaptisation They unjustly insinuate Anabaptistrie against us very often but themselves are in like actual transgression with the Anabaptists if their doctrine be true and yet manifest not their repentance nor tel us by vertue of which ordination they doo now administer 5. Fiftly they say the Preists and Levites in Jsrael being clensed of their vncleannes reteyned stil their places and their children after them did minister without a new anoynting or new imposition of hands c. I answer then belike the Romish preists must keep their Antichristian preisthood still for so the Preists in Israel did theirs Otherweise if they must have a new office how can they doo it by their old ordination Even in Rome it self when a Preist is promoted to a Bishops office he is new anoynted both hands head the holy Ghost agayn given him the pastoral staff the ring the Gospel is also given him to goe preach to the people committed to him c. and he hath a new imposition of hands besides that he had before 2. If the Preists children caled of God did in Israel minister without imposition of hands upon them at al as they suppose yet this wil make nothing for Antichrists hierarchie caled of the Divil with greasing shaving imposing of hands to sacrifice blasphemously for the quick and dead that they should now minister by vertue of this office and calling in the Church of Christ. Neyther might Baals Preists or Chemarims administer in Gods temple Their reason therfore from the Lords own Ministerie is altogither unfit the hethenish Flamins or Druides are fitter matches for Belials clergie And this M. Iohnson himself acknowledged when he wrote against M. Hilderdersh thus Jf Jupiters Preist Act. 14.13 or if Mahumets Preists now in Turkye should by the lawes of their nations be injoyned and therupon should execute the Ministerie of Gods word sacraments and censures would it follow therfore that such Preists had the substance of the Pastors office And why then should this Preisthood of Antichrist have more privilege then those seing the word of God hath layd this duty no more vpon it then upon the other but hath left them al with their followers and adherents under the curse Psal. 119 21 128. Rev. 9 3. 14.9 10 11. Thus he then wrote but now we find an other maner of plea. 6. Sixtly they say That they find in scripture some officers admitted with it some without it This I find not They allege Act. 13.1.2.3 where Paul and Barnabas had it It is true yea Paul had imposition of hands twise Act. 9.17 13.3 but where is the scripture that sayth some had it not They say we read not that the other Apostles had what then dooth this proov they had it not So we may also conclude the other Apostles were never baptised for we read not that they were We read not say the Anabaptists that children were baptised in the Apostles dayes wil these men now conclude therfore they were not baptised But doo not they know that arguments thus drawn negatively from scripture are generally blamed for insufficient 7. Seventhly they say that some churches hold it not of necessity to be had c. I answer that is nothing to such as hold it and have Elders to doo it But they diminish the state of the question for when the Apostle speaketh of Jmposition of hands Heb. 6.2 dooth he mean the outward ceremonie onely or the doctrine of the ministerie caling ordination signified by the sign I hope the reformed churches deny no principle of religion such as that is So in this case spoken of were it onely the outward signe I would not contend But they compare the baptism of Rome and the Ministerie of Rome togither no new baptising into the church therfore no new ordeyning unto the ministerie but as al come out of the Apostasie baptised Christians so some doo come ordeyned ministers Wherfore if these be alike they bring with them in their account the substance of a true office and of a true caling Otherweise if a new office and caling be given them I assure my self they that say Receiv the Teachers office c. may impose hands even as they that say J baptise thee into the name of the Father c may put on water Now these mens testimonie heretofore hath been strong against the Office or ministerie it self with the caling administration c. And now let them shew by the word that a new caling into a new office which men had not before may be by the ordination or imposition of hands given by Antichrist unto a false office with a false calling 8. Thus say they we shew our keeping of coÌ„munion with all other churches c. I answer this reason is good if communion be kept in the light not in darknes let Gods word therfore try the case Yet let these men say whither they know not that the ministers made in these reformed churches are not admitted in Engl. without a new ordination by the Prelates And that al Scholars admitted into Geneva must expressly detest the Popish hierarchie so caled as a Divilish confusion which hierarchie consisteth of Bishops Preists and Ministers and they that say it is not by divine ordination are by the Council of Trent accursed Is not here good communion Yea let me further tel them how the learned and better sort in England have disclaymed coÌ„munion with that Romish clergie D. Fulk in the Answ. of a true Christian to a counterfeyt catholik sayth Although al godly men wish more severitie of discipline to be used in receiving them that come out of heresies to serv in the Church then is commonly practised in England yet you are highly deceived if you think we esteem your offices of

AN ANIMADVERSION TO Mr RICHARD CLYFTONS Advertisement Who under pretense of answering Chr. Lawnes book hath published an other mans private Letter with Mr Francis Iohnsons answer therto Which letter is here justified the answer therto refuted and the true causes of the lamentable breach that hath lately fallen out in the English exiled Church at Amsterdam manifested By HENRY AINSWORTH Imprinted at Amsterdam by Giles Thorp Ano. Di. 1613. The Preface to the Christian reader OF all sorrowes that doo befal the people of God ther are none so greevous as intestine troubles which Satan rayseth among themselves With these above others we have been often afflicted the Lord so chastening our synns humbling us and exercising our faith and patience whiles many among us at sundry times have turned aside from the way of truth and holy commandement which God gave unto them And not contented to stray themselves alone they have sought by al means to draw others after them if they folow not they make warr against them What challenges provocations we have had by others the world hath seen heretofore by works published what now is further come upon us they may see in part though not as we have felt Our adverse brethreÌ„ although themselves have not answered the things formerly published against their present errours yet have not ceased to urge us with boastful speeches private letters and publik treatises to come into this feild and whiles wee were otherwise imployed they have much insulted against us and now rather then we should be quiet they take our private letters print them so restless is errour in it self so troublesom unto others And wheras Ch. Lawn and others first declined to these our Opposites faction and afterwards fel from evil to worse and have set out a lewd pamphlet to the disgrace of the truth and of sundry mens persons Mr Clyfton who hath printed my letter with M. Iohnsons answer intitleth his treatise An Advertisement concerning Ch. Lawns book but taking occasion by Articles therin printed the most that he advertiseth is against me It was my desire and purpose to have left controversies haue exercised my self in more quiet and comfortable meditations but it pleaseth not God as yet to grant my request therin My prayer therfore is that his gracious spirit may guide me in this conflict for his truth and gyrd me with strength unto this battel A few things I wil here breifly note touching our present controversie 1. The power of Christ which he left with his Church hath been continually assayled by Satan and his instruments Diotrephes began the love of preeminence in the Apostles time Bishops have prosequuted the same in all ages sithence but the high Preist of Rome did get the victorie and wears the triple crown Two pillars there are which do most underprop the towr of Antichrist 1. a proportion drawn from the goverment in Israel 2. and a pretended privilege from Peters keyes Pope Innocent the 3. from Deut. 17.8.12 bolstreth his canon law for exercising his jurisdiction over all causes persons proportionable to the high court and Synedrion of Israel Pighius writing for his Lords hierarchie and Dorman our countryman his disciple labouring to prove the same plead from the Iewes state how God provided to take away schismes that might arise by appointing a place and Iudge to flee unto in all such doubts Deut 17. and would have vs think that God hath provided as wel for his church now which hath no less need then they And because they had the same God the same Christ the same faith the same covenant c that we the lavv conteyned a shadow of the good things to come they think their proofs impregnable concluding from the high Preists court in Israel to their high Prelates consistorie in Christendom Bellarmine and other popish writers as this treatise after manifesteth allege the like arguments Our opposites now doo plead against us from the very same grounds wresting a proportion from the Princes of Israel to the Ministers of the gospel telling us we may not be strangers from the politie of Israel whereof see after in this treatise pag. 13.14 c. neyther of them observing how the Angel foretold that Christ should destroy the Citie and the Sanctuarie of the Iewes Dan. 9 26. and so abolish Moses politie bring an other into his house wherin he should be found as faithful as Moses Heb. 3 2 5 6. And he hath forbidden his ministers to exorcise princelike authoritie or dominion over his heritage Mat. 20 25 26 1. Pet. 5 1.3 2. The Papists seek shifts distinctions to turn away the reasons that disprove their errours Bellarmine being pressed with judgments used heretofore in the Churches would ease himself thus Ther is a double iudgement sayth he publik and private Publik is that which is uttered by a publik judge with authoritie so as others are bound to rest in that judgement Private is the sentence which every one chooseth as true but it bindeth no man Publick judgment in the cause of faith is never given to the people but private judgement somtimes is given them c. In like manner these our opposites who themselves heretofore reasoned wel for the churches judging of synners from 1. Cor. 5.4 12. doo now seek to solute their own arguments with the same distinction Ther is also say they a publik judgement and a private c. The publik iudgment coÌ„meth out froÌ„ the Lord and from his ministers for him and the church or coÌ„mon wealth whose publik officers they are The private iudgement is to every particular person touching their discerning assenting or dissenting to or from the things spokeÌ„ c as every one is perswaded Jf this their iudgement agree with the publik it is already signified by the officers and so is the same with the publik Jf some disagree it is the dissent of such particular persons iudgement froÌ„ the publik of what sexe or conditioÌ„ soever they be that so are diversly minded is to be regarded as there shal be cause Alleging for this private judgmeÌ„t 1 Cor. 6.2.3 Act. 26.10 with 22.20 21.25 with 15.6.22 16.4 with 1. Cor. 5.12.13 1. Cor. 10.15 11.13 Now although these men quote scriptures which the Cardinal dooth not yet are the places but for a shew they yeild no sound proof of the question For none of them doo manifest that in the Churches judging of synners Paul intended the Elders onely should have a publik judgment and al the people beside but a private nay the contrary dooth appear by the whole argument of that chapter to omitt things which may be pressed against their distinction from Act. 15.22.25.28 and other places As when he mentioneth sorowing 1. Cor. 5.2 he meant not that the Elders sorow should be publik and the peoples private When he willeth that the wicked man by the power of Christ should

be delivered to Satan and cast out froÌ„ 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 meÌ„ wil they may misapply this distinctioÌ„ to all church actioÌ„s as to SacrameÌ„ts 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 froÌ„ theÌ„ 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 NuÌ„ 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 rebellioÌ„ against Moses AroÌ„ vse the same reasoÌ„ when they told theÌ„ to their face let it suffice you that al the multitude is holy they have God present with theÌ„ And why then take you upoÌ„ 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 DathaÌ„ 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 CongregatioÌ„ and to minister vnto them but they sought the office of the Preist also so these our opposers are not conteÌ„t 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 theÌ„selves 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 coÌ„mon 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 daÌ„mage 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 upoÌ„ 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 coÌ„mon 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. 1â— 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 excommunicatioÌ„ 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 froÌ„ 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 coÌ„troversie 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 coÌ„mon 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

ought neyther can a proportion or comparison be rightly made 4. It is an argument that is yet hid and by our opposites themselves unmanifested how the proportion they speak of shal be shaped For in Israel ther were Magistrates in the cities Preists and Levits in the Tabernacle and Ministers in the Synagogues Let them shew us who now are proportionable to the Magistrates who to the Preists and who to the Ministers in the synagogues The Magistrates also were of sundry sorts as Elders Heads Judges Officers The Judges agayn differing both in number and power In all the cities throughout the tribes were Judges which the Iewâ—doctors call the lesser Sanhedrin or Session and say it consisted of 23. Iudges and Officers which they say were weaponed and executed the Iudges sentences In the cheif City Ierusalem were also Iudges and Preists for the weightiest and hard causes this they caled the great Sanhedrin or Session and it had 71. Iudges of whom first Moses was cheif and sucsessively one caled Nasi the Prince next whom they place Aâ—beth diâ—â— the Father of the judgment hall besides other officers as two Scribes to write the causes of the condemned the absolved Shâ—lcâ—â—h â—â—th din the Messenger or Angel of the Court even as ther was also in other cases Sheliaâ—h â—sibbur the Messenger or Angel of the Church or Congregation in the synagogues wherunto it may be thought that in Rev. 2.1 c. hath allusion Agayn they make an other court of three for lesser strifes and mony matters caled dâ—ies mâ—â—monoth the lower Synedrion of 23. judged matters of life and death diâ—â—i nephashoth the high Senate of 71. judged weightiest matters of state of warrs of a Tribe of a False prophet of appeals brought c. Also among the Preists and Levits ther were divers orders and functions some chief some inferior some ministring in the sanctuary by course some overseers and judges some Musicians some Tresurers some Porters c. In the synagogues ther were alwayes lecturers and preachers of the law and prophets in every citie and in Ierusalem it self were many synagogues besides the Temple there Now they that would proportion their power with Israel showld shew whither they mean al these fore-spokeÌ„ or but some They should tel us to whoÌ„ the Pastor is proportionable to whome the Teacher to whom the ruling Elders And seing they wil have that rule in Mat. 18. to be as it was in Israel they should tel us to which of those Synedrions or Preists or Rulers Christ sendeth Whiles these things are not cleared but we are told generally of a pâ—oportion with Israel we are led as in the clowds and know not into what errours we may fall 5. They referr us in the beginning of their Treatise on Mat. 18.17 to a place in Mat. 5.22.23 c where Christ they say teacheth the offending brother how to cary himself as in Mat. 18.15 c. he dooth the brother offended that in both places Christ sheweth to whom the offender may be brought viz to the Church or Congregation Mat. 18.17 to the Synedrion or sitting of Elders Mat. 5.22 which must be eyther all one with the other or ells how should his hearers then understand him or these things then be observed or these two places be reconciled I answer Christ might farr better be understood then then our opposites may now his words are cleare but not to the purpose that they cite them Christ there speaketh not of men judging on earth but of Gods judging in heaven For men had not power to condemn to hel fyre there spoken of neyther could they by Moses law condemn a man to death for unadvised anger as Christ there God would doo neyther was every maÌ„ that caled his brother Raka to be brought to the Synedrion at Ierusalem the lesser courts in the cities could hear and end such matters The Iew Doctors say that such as bring an evil same on their neighbours were to be judged by the Court of 3. or by that of the 23. but for the high Synedrion both they and Moses law shew it was for the more weighty and difficult cases Our saviour in Mat. 5. interprets the law otherweise then did the scribes They sayd whosoever killeth shal be culpable of judgment that is he should dye by Gods law and further then outvvard actual murder they went not But Christ sheweth 3. kinds of kylling otherweise then with the hand the least wherof even unadvised anger should be punished with death by God and as it did increase and shevv it self in evil speeches so should their punishment be increased in hel which he setteth down by allusion to the sundry civil judgments in Israel And so he procedeth to teach men the true keeping of the law by love and reconciliation without which they should be cast into the prison of hel how ever such synns were not punishable by men But in Mat. 18. Christ speakketh of judgments on earth in this life and that not of the civil punishments by the Magistrates sword but of binding and loosing by the word of God to be performed by the Church that is as Paul sheweth the ecclesiastical assembly gathered in Christs name Wherfore the church in Mat. 18 17. is not the Synedrion in Mat. 5.22 as these would have it Or if it be then is it meant of the Magistrates and not of the church ministers unto whom these would now draw it For were the Ministers and preachers of the law in the synagogues judges in the synedrion Sheliach Isibbur Angelus ecclesiae the messenger of the Congregation was he the cheif of the synedrion as the Pastor vvho they say is Angelus ecclesiae is now cheif in the Eldership If Christ must needs speak to the understanding of the Ievves and order his Church like their coÌ„mon vvealth ther must be more then one court or Synedrion and he could not give that to 2. or 3. gathered any vvhere in his name vvhich belonged to the Senate of the Realm 6. So vvheras they say we would perswade them Christs doctrine in Mat. 18.17 is a new rule which Jsrael had not I think it wil be good for them to yeild unto this persvvasion For the Elders in Israel to vvhom they referr us by Psal. 82. Josh. â—0 4.5.6 Num. 35 12.24.25 29. Deut. 19.11.12.16.17 and other like places being Magistrates that had povver of life and death if Christ sendeth unto such the Ministers of the Church I hope vvil not intrude into their places Wherfore eyther let them acknovvledge the nevv Testament to have nevv rules and ordinances and that the kingdome being changed aswel as the Preisthood there must needs be a change of the law therof also or els let them leave it to the Magistrate vnto vvhom it belongeth Next this they

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 coÌ„mon 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 excoÌ„municated 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 excoÌ„municate 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 excoÌ„municated 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 maÌ„ 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 1â— 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.

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

sayd let al the congregation stone him and al the Congregation brought him without the host and stoned him Now by M. Iohnsons own grant they whom the Iudges condemned did dye by the hands of the people who is it then that cannot see the Congregation here to mean both Elders and people So in the other place Num. 27.2 when they stood before Moses and Eleazar the preist and before the Princes and al the Congregation this distribution of the persons togither with the place the dore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation may shew that the Elders onely were not meant besides in the same chapter Iosua being there ordeyned over the Congregation c. it cannot with any colour be gathered that the Elders onely were the congregation Num. 27.16.17.19.20 c. Wherfore when one scripture mentioneth the Elders Jos. 20.4 and an other the Congregation Num 32.12 Jos. 20.6 we should not restreyn it to the lesser but let the scripture have the largest sense unless apparant reason doo urge a restreynt which is not here but the contrary For if they were to dye by the hands of the people conscience required the people to hear their cause tryed also seing the law charged every one thou shalt not slay the innocent and the righteous and it was not safe for them to trust their Iudges which so often and so many wayes corrupted judgment as al the prophets doo complayn It is therfore an evil argument to say in Israel by one scripture men were sent to the Elders by an other to the Congregation therfore it was the congregation of Elders and not of the people also For by such wrested reasons one might prove that the Elders onely were bound to keep the passover because in one place it is sayd speak to all the Congregation of Israel that every man take to him a Lamb Exod. 12 3. and in an other place it is sayd Moses caled al the Elders of Israel saying chuse out take for every of your howsholds a Lamb Exod. 12 21. therfore it was meant of the Congregation of Elders and so the other people were not bound to this service Agayn it was coÌ„manded Exod 19 3 5. tel the children of Jsrael if ye wil hear my voice and keep my covenant ye shal be my chief treasure c. afterwards it is sayd Moses caled for the Elders of the people and proposed unto them al these things shal we now conclude therfore the covenant was made with the Elders onely Who seeth not the weaknes of such consequents and that it is usual in scripture to name but the principal of a company and yet to include others with them Notwithstanding between Israel and us there were two mayn differences the one that Church ministers now have not such ecclesiastical authoritie over the people as is proportionable to the Magistrates autoritie then for this is forbidden Mat. 20 25. vvher Christ sayth the rulers of the nations have domination over them and they that are great exercise authoritie over them but it shal not be so among you And 1. Pet. 5.2 3. Feed the flock of God c. not as having domination over his heritage The other is that they vvere a national Church the Magistrats in the gates of Ierusalem the Preists in the Temple being for the whole Realm it could not be that al the people should be present at the dayly judgements of the Magistrates or sacrifices of the Preists And therfore it vvas not required so of them as novv it is of us vvho are but particular Churches to be present at al publik administration of Christs kingdom and preisthood Yea even in their most solemn assemblies they could not doo as vve ar bound to doo For they did eat the passeover in their private hovvses because al the thovvsands of Israel could not eat it in one room but vve are bound to eat the passover now I mean the Lords supper in the publik Church and not otherwhere Wheras therfore they next except that the people were 600. thowsand men and would we have them to think that they came togither to hear examine and judge the cases of syn c. I answer no neyther al the Elders For I have before shevved there were divers officers for several causes And Boaz took but ten of the Elders of BethleheÌ„ to hear his cause The Elders also did meet by themselves as ther was occasion and so are they to doo now Secondly for this exception of so many thowsands in the wildernes that could not come to hear and judge they should mind how the same lyeth against the execution When God sayd of the blasphemer let all the Congregation stone him wil they say six hundred thowsand men came together to doo it yet themselves grant this vvas to be doon by the people It vvas as easy for them to come to hear his cause tryed as to come and stone him and care of equity taught them to doo the first as vvel as the last as before is shevved Next they except against our expounding the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 18.1 c. to be the church under the gospel since Christ this they say is not sound because the same phrase is spoken of the church of the Jewes Mat. 22.2 c. I answer this their reason is unsufficient for I could so except against the exposition almost of any scripture by shewing a diverse use and meaning of the words When th'Apostle proveth Christs excellencie above the Angels because of his name the Son of God the Iewes might allege that the Angels are also caled Sonns of God yea holy men have the like title but were this a sufficient answer Wel I wil not stâ—ive with them about the phrase although in some places they may see the Kingdom of Heaven opposed to the state of the Iewes church as Mat. 11.11 but as the prophets tel us of new heavens under the Gospel so wil I distinguish and cal the Iewish church the old heaven as that which is shaken and removed and the Christian church the new heaven of which the Gospel usually speaketh as Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand Mat. 3.2 4.17 Now vvhen the disciples asked Iesus who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven ther might be reason of their demand touching the Christian church then to be planted but to ask such a thing about the Ievvish church I see litle reason They knevv already the state of it and vvho vvas cheif therin Secondly Christs ansvver leadeth us hereto for ther being great expectation of that Kingdom and an erroneous persuasion that it should be a glorious vvorldly state Christ tells them the contrary that it vvas for the converted and humble sovvles to enter into that many scandals and offenses should arise herein both from the vvorld and from mens corruption in them selves and from

excoÌ„munication Fourthly if some would thus cavil against Moses lavv which requireth the hands of al the people to stone a wicked man and ask whether women also and children must be present cast stones he might have as good colour for his question as have these if not better For these say in Jsrael such as would not hearken to the Preists judges were to dye by the hands of the people and the proportion that they cast for the people now is that they shal put the sentence in execution by avoiding the excoÌ„municated persons Now I think they wil have women yea and children also to avoyd excoÌ„municated persons so then by proportion women children in Israel must cast stones at malefactors Yea this may be further urged against them by reason of a pregnant note which they give in their Treatise on Mat. 18 that that is such a church as where women may speak are to be heard in their cases and pleas as wel as men but it is not permitted to women to speak in the Churches of the saincts c. wher eyther they aequivocate with this word speak using it in divers senses a coÌ„mon practise of such as would deceiv or they must permitt women to have voices and suffrages as wel as men in al their churches of Elders and so by their proportion women were to cast stones in Israel For if women are to do execution now why not then also 5. Now wheras they intimate to the reader as if we vvould have al men examine rebuke admonish in the presence of the Elders they doo but labour the disgrace of the holy order in the church wher the Minister as the mouth of the congregation propoundeth examineth and carieth matters and then the people if there be defect or default may speak in due order but if in matter or manner they transgress they are to bear their rebuke Al things in the publick judgments of the church being caried holily peaceably and by the government of the Elders even as in elections of officers in prophesie or any other thing wherin men have libertie for to speak And when the Ministers cary things well we commonly find it as in Act. 15.12 that al the multitude keepeth silence otherwise strife and sometime disorder dooth often arise by the evil dealing of the Elders 6. It is also to be observed how these our opposites wil require by their proportion from Israel children to stone their parents wives their husbands and servants their maysters by avoiding their coÌ„munion yet wil they not have theÌ„ to be of that church which is to hear examine judge of the causes why their parents c. should be stoned and excoÌ„municated not bound to be present at the trial of their case Did ever any coÌ„mon wealth in the world require such execution at the hands of wives children and servants and yet teach them so little to honour and regard their parents as not to think themselves bound to hear their case tried but upon the Elders report to stone their own fathers husbands maisters which doo take it on their death that they are innocent Against 1. Cor. 12.21 26. which was by some alleged they except 1. that the Apostles purpose is not to speak of cases and pleas about syn and of the manner of dealing therin but of the diversity of gifts and functions given for the help and service of all to the building up of the body of Christ. I answer 1. the Apostle speaketh generally of the diversities of gifts Ministeries and operations in the church as they are given to to every man to profit with all and nameth in particular the gifts operations and ministeries and among the rest the governours or governments and ther is no church action which the Apostle purposeth not in that his dispute to comprehend their first exception therfore is not true 2. Neyther dooth it agree with it self for if he speak as they confess of the diversity of gifts and functions given for the help and service of all to the building up of the body of Christ then can he not but speak of cases and pleas about syn seing they are to be judged by the gifts and functions of the church they are for the help and service of all they help to build up the body of Christ. Vnless they would have us think that the Elders prelacie which they strive for is none of those gifts or functions nor for the help and service of all nor for the building up of Christs body but of Antichrists this we wil grant them to be true 2. Secondly they except the Apostle sheweth it by the similitude of the natural body and faculties and applieth it to the feeblest members even the yongest children newly baptised vers 13 â—22 to whom he appointeth not the cases of syn to be brought to judgment and censure as we hereupon would inferr I answer in thus speaking they injurie us and the truth it self Would we inferr that the judgmeÌ„t of syn should be brought to infants newly baptised because we say not the Elders onely but the church is to judge as Paul teacheth And would th'Apostle also inferr think they that infants should rebuke and judge unbeleevers because he sayth when the whole church is come togither in one if al prophesie and ther come in one that beleeveth not he is rebuked of al is judged of al. And did Iosua also mean that the yongest children newly circumcised threw stones at Achan because he sayth al Jsrael stoned him we had not thought wise men would ever have made such inferences And what vveight is in their reasoning from infants that if other besides Elders may judge synners then infants if not infantes then no other but Elders Might not men thus elude al Pauls arguments As when he sayth the manifestation of the spirit is given to every one to profit withal they to conclude therfore the yongest children newly baptised can manifest the spirit to the profit of others We have bene all made to drink into one spirit therfore infants also were partakers of the Lords supper Jf one member be had in honour all the members reioyce with it therfore even the sucking babes for they also are members But did not these men think to find babes of us that they have given such an answer to our allegations 3. Thirdly they except that this similitude might likewise be applied to Jsrael which we grant Also we acknowledge that it may not eyther then or now pervert Gods ordinance about the Elders hearing c. They say the governours are set in the Church for that use I answer not the governours onely this is that which they should prove They are to govern the Church in al actions but not to doo them alone Also they say al members have not fit gifts for examining of persons deciding of questions c.

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

a beast to bear rule 6. Here also they doo violence to the Apostles similitude of a body and say when a part of the body is hurt the hand is not used nor sought unto to see withal nor the foot to hear neyther dooth the head take them to consult and determine what to doo but when the head it self hath considered and determined then it useth the help of the hand or foot c. as ther is need and occasion I answer 1. first much abuse may be offred to al parables by wresting them beyond their general scope as is here to this For by this manner of reasoning the Elders as the head have al the wit and the people as the hands and feet have none at al. The Elders as the eyes see al things but the people see no more then the ears For if the people have some understanding and insight into matters as wel as the Elders why should they not be used also in consulting and determining publick things which coÌ„cern al. Vnless the Elders now have such abundance of wisdom as they can afford ynough to al and need supply from none But the scripture tells the contrary saying who is sufficient for these things 2. Cor. 2.16 And what meant the Apostles and Elders of Ierusalem to have al the people with them at their consulation determination of a controversie Act. 15.2 22 23. And why did th'Apostles being the eyes speak to the multitude which it seemeth saw no more then doo the hands and feet to look out men of wisdom for office among them Act. 6.2.3 But what if there be of the people that see more then all their Elders being illuminated as was David by Gods precepts what if the Elders be blind guides as Christ caleth some without understanding as the prophet coÌ„playneth Then men must leav the blind Eldership and goe to the prudent brethren and they must consult and determine yea without the Elders if these men say true Doe not these things manifest how they have wrested the similitude 2. Secondly it is direct against the Apostles meaning who because of dissentions in the church of Corinth sheweth by that similitude of a body that the chiefest members have need of the inferiour and the head cannot say to the feet I have no need of yow but now the Elders can say to the people we need not your help to judge and determine questions and controversies this gift and duty is ours neyther are yow bound to be present to hear and decide publick causes but when we have judged you shal execute our judgments And if the people agayn should say to the Elders when they are about choise of officers we need not your help or counsel you are not bound to be present when we doo this busynes the feet have no more need of the eyes to goe then the eyes have of the feet to see Were not this to make a division in the body which th'Apostle there condemneth 3. Moreover it is vayn to think that any officer or brother in the Church should so be one special member of the body as that he cannot be an other The Prophets in Israel were Seers and so in sted of eyes in the head but when they looked out vayn things then as the Lord saith the Prophet that taught lies was the tayl Jsa 9.15 The Elders by directing the church in the right way are as eyes to the body by administring the sacraments and censures they are as hands when they are sent on the Churches message they are as feet when they reprove synns they are as the mouth when they are reproved for their synns they should be as ears and so other Christians in their places and imployments And as God hath bestowed his graces upon any so is he to be regarded of al without respect of person neyther should the Elders be minded like Achitophel and take it yll if at any time their counsel be not folowed A man may see that in the Church which SolomoÌ„ saw in the beseiged citie a poor wise man that delivered the citie by his wisdom though both he and his wisdom were despised A woman in Abel when it was in danger to be spoyled perswaded al the people with her wisdom to cut off Shebaes head and so preserved the city Was she in this action a part of the foot or of the hart and head in that body may we think 4. Finally this their reasoning is one with the Iesuits that exclude the people froÌ„ church affayrs The Church sayth Bellarmine bindeth and looseth but by their Prelates not by whomsoever even as the body speaketh but by the tongue not by the hand Thus dooth the Cardinal answer M. Luthers argument and thus doo these men answer ours 6. Yet have they not sayd ynough but they will make it Antichristian servitude to have the people bound to come to the publick ecclesiastical judgements unless perhaps when the Elders call them togither to execute their sentence for then I trow they are bound to come And is not this agayn to divide the body when the head must be present and the showlders with the other parts and members may be absent The Apostle writing to the Church of Corinth how to doo when they came togither for the Lords supper writeth also to them how when they were gathered togither they should deliver the wicked unto Satan We find no difference but they were bound to come to the one as to the other And if they answer they are bound to assemble for to excommunicate him but not to hear him by the word convinced in the trial of his cause they may as wel teach the people they are bound to come to eat the bread and wine in the Lords supper but not bound to hear the word teaching and preparing them here unto We doo so understand Gods law that when it commandeth us any thing it dooth also command us to use al means for the right and holy performance of it and al wil be litle ynough The people therfore that were bound to stone an idolater in Israel were bound by that law thow shalt not slay the innocent to look that he were duly convicted of the crime and now by this law be not partaker of other mens synns keep thy self pure every sowl that is bound to cast out a man condemned for heresie or other syn is also bound to see him convicted least Diotrephes cause to cast out faithful brethren He that stands out to excommunication wil coÌ„monly plead his cause to be just and complayn that the Elders have perverted judgmeÌ„t with what comfort of hart can the people now excoÌ„municate him if they have not heard the proceedings against him and yet must execute the Elders sentence upon him Let wise men judge whither this be not spiritual tyrannie which the Elders would bring upon the

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 excoÌ„municate 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 maintenaÌ„ce 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 coÌ„troversies 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 excoÌ„munication 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 excoÌ„municate 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 takeÌ„ 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 coÌ„mmunion 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 coÌ„meth 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 excoÌ„municate 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 electioÌ„ 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

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

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

ministred until the Pastors or Teachers were choseÌ„ 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 amoÌ„g 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 uncircuÌ„cised 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 exceptioÌ„ 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 froÌ„ 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

also shewed like reason of our dislike it being both unlawful for vs to practise syn as it were with the right hand and righteousnes with the left no likelihood of our peace but of greif and dayly dissentions 6. Touching the motion made by the Church of Leyden for coming first to the Elders as Church governours c. and for admonition being caried according to the alteration practised and agreed upon wherupon these our opposites now observ against us for not yeilding therto how greatly we oppugned the ordinance of God touching the Elders hearing and judging of causes c. this rightly weighed wil shew how greatly we are by them abused For first it was such a course as neyther the Church at Leyden would bind themselves to walk in neyther did these our opposites or we think it to be according to the order of God Secondly they tel us not wherfore we desire them in their next to tel us whither themselves would sincerely have practised these things according to the true intendement of the Church of Leyden that motioned them Thirdly for the cariage of admonition spoken of it was found out and by M. Iohnson himself publikly acknowledged that the controversie between us was therin closely implied and yeilded unto them when upon dispising the admonition of the Elders the parties were to be excommunicated This being thus manifested with what conscience could we yeild to practise errour privily brought in under hand and deny to practise the same thing publickly professed Would not al men and even they theÌ„selves have blamed us for such dissimulation Fourthly for comming to the Elders first as governours vve did then and doo novv yeild it the brethrens duty in doubts so to come for counsel advise but for to bind all men in most manifest synns vvhich the Church should judge to come first to the Elders onely and so to lay it on the brethren as for not doing it they should be excoÌ„municated and yet both sides acknovvledge it is not the order of God vve told them this vvould be to deal worse then the Pharisees vvhen none of vs vvalked in that vvhich vve professed to be the right vvay but leaving that vvould stablish our ovvn traditions and cast out men for not observing them These vveighty reasons they overpass and bear the vvorld in hand how greatly we oppugned Gods ordinance touching the Elders vvheÌ„ vve but oppugned the Elders traditioÌ„s least they should be advanced above the ordinaÌ„ce of God Next folovv their reasons vvhy they vvould not stand to their former agreement vvith us nor have spiritual fellowship as they write with us in such estate walking 1. Because they could not find warrant for it in the word of God I answer if they acknowledge no warrant found for our peaceable parting here nor dismissing to an other Church what remayned but eyther we must yeild to their errors which for the reasons foreshewed we might not or ells part from them as we did the causes of the division being in them both by broaching errour and refusing peace 2. Their second reason is because we refused as they say disobeyed and spake evil of the truth and way of God I answer first this is to take that for granted which is the question betvveen us Secondly if this reason be good and the truth be vvith us as vve doubt not of it then they grant us that vve had just cause to leave spiritual fellovvship vvith them vvhich departed from and spake evil of and persecuted the truth and vvay of God vvherin themselves once walked with us Howbeit if we would have lived at Leyden all had been peace is it more lawful trow we to speak evil of and disobey the truth there then at Amsterdam 3. Their third reason is because we refused to continue coÌ„munion with them though we might be suffred to walk in peace with protestation in our difference of judgment I answer this having been first offred by us to them and they refusing it as before they grant it coÌ„meth upon their own heads if any weight be in it Secondly we have shewed sundry reasons from scripture why we might not so walk have never yet heard from them any like reasons to warant us to protest against a synful practise and yet to practise it dayly If our own harts and mouthes condemn us God is greater 4. Their 4. reason is because some of us professed we would not deal in causes by way of protestation neither when we were with them nor from them I answer first the different mind of some few is not of weight to break the agreement with us al. Secondly this might have fallen out also occasionally if we had lived at Leyden where they would have had peace with us So it is our living in this city that was in deed the onely true cause vvhy they stood not to their agreement the other are but pretenses 5. Their 5. reason is because we went not from one Church Pastor to another so to live and remayn but purposed when we had joyned unto them presently to return and live here in this town apart from them I answer this was in deed that which troubled them they could not indure us in the same city by theÌ„ Yet they cannot deny but it was promised we all should live and remayn there unless it were to the apparant undoing of us and our families And were not these loving brethren that had rather we and our families should be undoon then they would want of their wills For what reason much less necessity can they shew why we must goe from one church and pastor to an other and may not continue in the place and state wherin God had called us with as many officers already among our selves as the Church of Leyden had and one a Teacher of the word They tel us afterward that the very naming of going to another Church Pastor caryeth weight of reason with it belike because he is a Pastor that sayth it for word of God shew they none that binds men to goe to another Church where ther is a Pastor and no Teacher but forbids them to remain in their own coÌ„munion and church where ther is a Teacher and no Pastor Especially when without the apparant undoing of men their families they can not remove their habitation 6. Their 6. reason is because by such walking of ours great reproch would come upon us all with much dishonur to God c. I answer it can not be avoyded but offenses wil come but woe unto them by whoÌ„ they come Yet greater reproch as we alwayes feared is come by their refusing peace with us unless it were upon unlawful unreasonable conditions then vvould have been by our peaceable parting vvhich vve often and instantly desired 7. Their last reason is because they thought there should alwayes be somwhat in such cases used as wherby the Lord might work upon our consciences

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

request our help therin and that the Elders would no way aporove therof but would onely permitt our coÌ„ming eyther of our selves or at their request Wherin they also certifyed vs how some of them had charged the exposition of these words Tell the Church Mat. 18 17. Tell the Elders with some other particulars therupon depending to be errour and so were to prove their charge and therfore earnestly requested us to help in that great busynes that the truth might be mainteyned and not by their weaknes injuried and the innocent condemned and that we would help the Lord against the mighty c. And the reason why they thus earnestly requested our help was because M. Ainsworth was so sparing in opposing of Mr Iohnsons new doctrine though alwayes misliking it as they scarse knew how he was minded in the things so loath was he to come to any professed and publique opposition with him whom he rather hoped to pacify by moderation then by opposition to stop in his intended course Besides he was careful not to give any incouragement to the too violent oppositions of some brethren though minded as they were in the things themselves This their letter and earnest request in it notwithstanding we weÌ„t not but wrote to the Church and shewed them what the substance of the letter was desiring by theÌ„ to be informed how things stood with them and signifying withall our vnwillingnes to interpose but upon a dew and necessary calling and that also as much as might be vnder the conditions of best hope of good yssue They as before denyed to approve of our coÌ„ming and would onely permit it and that vnder the terms of jealousy and advantage as appears by that which themselves have published and did oft and earnestly require of us a coppy of the letter before meÌ„tioned with the names of the persons subscribed unto it Which though we judged and still do an hard and extream impositioÌ„ in it self considering they themselves had permitted them to send unto vs and knew from vs whereabout they wrote and had not layd it vpon them to shew them their letter before they sent it yet had we given way to their desires herein had it not been for one phrase in the end of the letter which being borrowed from Deborahs speach against Sisera Iudg. 5 23. and applyed as it was might give offence and minister occasion of further strife which phrase also we reproved in the wryters of the letter and they acknowledged amiss professing notwithstanding they had no evill meaning in it but onely a desire to provoke vs the more effectually to supply their inability against those with whom they had to deal Now for our withholding the coppy of the letter though since that tyme for their importunity we sent it them as also for our purpose of coÌ„ming unto them and the ends therof we will here insert what we wrote unto them in two severall letters thereabout For the former thus If the letter wherof you desire a coppy might further your coÌ„mon peace or procure good to any wee should easily answer your desire but if on the contrary there were the least evill in it wee should hold it our duties to deal with the parties offending our selves and not to discover their sin And loath would we be eyther to minister matter of further scanning amongst you or that any register of unkindnes should come unto you from our hands And the fear of this was in truth the onely cause why we refused to send this letter as they required Wherin if we fayled as we see no cause so to think yet was it the errour of our love and great desire of their peace About our coÌ„ming we thus wrote Our purpose therfore is according to the request of the brethren which have moved us and our duty to send or come unto you not to oppose any person or to mainteyn any charge of errour but by all other brotherly meanes to help forward your holy peace if so the Lords will be which how precious it is unto us we hope to manifest to the consciences of all men then which we know nothing in this world we haue more cause to endeavour both with God and your selves Of which our comming we pray you to accept and to appoint us some such time as seemes to you most convenient Wherealso we shall satisfy you to the utmost both touching the letter and other particulars in all equity yea so farr as we can without apparant sin These things notwithstanding they would not approve but onely permit of our comming as men use to permit of that which is evill and which in deed they could not hinder And so we came vnto them first of our selves and afterwards at the request of M. Ainsworth and them with him being sent by the Church wherof we are and so inforâ—mâ— our selves vpon them for the delivering of the Churches message did reprove what we judged evill in them and that we confesse with some vehemency And in that regard it was that vpon the motion made by Mr. Iohnson for the free dismission of such members with them unto vs as could not there walk with peace of conscience there lying no other cause against them which should also be mutually performed on our part we signifyed as he wryteth that wee little thought they had been so inclinable to peace that if we had so thought we would have caryed our selves otherweise towards them then we did And good cause had we so to speak For neyther is the same cariage to be vsed towards men prosecuting their purposes and perswasions with all violence and extremity and towards them which manifest Christian moderation in the same neyther had we before or have we since found the like peaceable inclination in them to that which they then manifested Which how great greif it hath been vnto us and how it hath even wounded our very harts he onely knoweth which seeth the sorrowes of the hearts of his servants and putteth their teares in his bottel But to passe by these things and to proceed The motion made by Mr Iohnson for a peaceable dismission was by the Church there received with generall assent unto which the Church also at Leyden condiscended and so sent back the Officers for the further ratification of it and for some other purposes tending to the establishing of peace amongst them Wherupon it was also the second tyme by theÌ„ confirmed alwayes in deed with submissioÌ„ to the word of God as was meet and that if eyther they or we minded otherwise we should so signify Which notwithstanding they did not but reversed the agrement of themselves without acquainting vs with the change of their mind or reasons therof Afterwards indeed they gave us knowledge of their purpose as appears in their former letter by themselves published desiring the continuance of our consideration about it as if the thing which was fully agreed upon as is aforesayd and that oftener then

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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 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

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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 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 ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ 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

Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Text snippets containing the quad