binding losing is also given vnto two or thre faithful ones wheresoever joyned together in the world The consequent of this argument only is doubtfull which may thus most manifestly be confirmed expoundeÌ„d when Christ is given then with Christ al things els are given Rom. 8.32 Christ I say with al his apurtenances when Christ the King is given to the faithful then Christs Kingdom is given vnto them then have they Christs powre to administer that Kingdom according to his direction when Christ the Preist is given to the faithful then Christs Sacrifice is given vnto them powre to administer al the efficacy of his Preisthood vnto the Saynts according to his direction when Christ the Prophett is given to the faythful then Christs Prophesy or the Holy doctryne of Salvation is giveÌ„ to the Church with powre for the dispensing therof according to his owne ordinance bâ— reason wherof the Saynts are said to have an anoynting or Chrisma from him that is Holy 1. Ioh. 2.20 therfor are called Christians Act. 11.26 being anoynted to be Kings 〈◊〉 Preâ—sts vnto God Revel 1.6 Prophets Act. 2.17.18 Seing then that by Christ the 〈◊〉 Prest Prophet who is given to the Saints the Saynts are made Kings Preists Pâ—â—phets therfor as Kings they have a ministerial powre given them of binding losing 〈◊〉 so â—orth of the rest The eight Argument from Mat. 18 15-20 compared with 1. Cor. 5.4.5 Mat. 6.12 Luk. 17.3 â—â—â—n these places of Scripture I collect this argument If one brother hath powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent privately to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent privately then a communion of faithful men have powre to retaine the sinnes of an impenitent member publiquely to remit the sinnes of one that is penitent publiquely But one brother hath powre given him by Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother privately impenitent and to remitt the sinnes of a brother privately penitent Ergo a communion of faithfull people have powre to retayne the sinnes of a member publiquely impenitent to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely penitent To the same sense the argument may be framed after this manner If witnesses admonishing a brother have powre given them by Christ to retaine the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse then a communioÌ„ of faithful men have powre to retain the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance But witnesses admonishing a brother have powre from Christ to retayne the sinnes of a brother impenitent before witnesse to remit the sinnes of a brother penitent before witnesse Ergo a communion of faithful men have powre to retayne the sinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent or to remit the sinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance The premisses of both those arguments are evident out of Mathew Luke the conclusion is the Apostles direction to the Corinths The ninth Argument from Eph 5.30.32 1.22.23 Revel 21.2 22.17 From these Scriptures compared together I draw this argument The wife hath powre immediately from her husband the body hath powre immediately from the head The visible Church or a communion of faithful people are Christs spowse the wise of the lamb Christ mystical body Ergo the visible Church or a communion of faithful ones have Christs ministeriall powre immediately from him Againe As the body hath life sense motion powre from the head the hands feet have powre from the body So the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church as the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church But it is true in nature that the body hath life sence motion powre froÌ„ the head al the members have powre from the body Ergo the Church hath powre from Christ the head the members of the Church viz the Elders Deacons have powre from the Church By al which arguments put together it appeareth most evidently that Christs ministeriall powre of binding losing is given to the body of eyery true visible Church and that all the Officers of the Church have their powre and authority to administer derived vnto them from Christ through the body of the Church where they administer And thus have I proved evidently as I take it both that Christs ministerial powre commeth not by successive ordination by the hands of the ministery that it is immediately given to the body of the Church And heer for your further informacion Mr. Bern. I wish you to take notice that succession is a typical ordinance of the Old Testament therfor abolished by Christs comming For the Apostle wisheth vs to take heed of Iewish Fables Genealogies 1. Tim. 1 4. Tit. 1.14 bicause these genealogies were of necessity for the carnal ordinances of the old Testament but the Spiritual genealogie succession is for the new testament In the old Testament they had carnal parents a carnal seed carnal children carnal csrcumcision carnal commaundemeÌ„ts a carnal temple a carnal cittie a carnal preisthood a carnal Kingdom in the new Testament we have spiritual parents a spiritual seed which is the word spiritual children viz the faithful circumcision made without hands spiritual commaundements a spiritual temple an heavenly cittie spiritual Preists Kings a spiritual kingdom preisthood Therfor succession in the old Testament was carnal by genealogie if you therfor wil set vp a carnal succession in the new Testament by ordination for the ministery you must do it also 1. For the Church so fetch it from Rome 2. For the baptisme so fetch it from Rome 3. For the L. Supper so fetch it from Rome 4. For the Faith so fetch it from Rome 5. For excommunication so fetch it from Rome so forth of the rest this is to tie all Churches to the vnity succession of the chayre of Rome as in the old Testament al were tyed to the vnity succession of the temple at Ierusalem Herin therfor you see how you vanish away in your jmaginations by setting vp succession approving your self before you be aware a Iew a Papist an Antichristian this shal suffice for the matter of ordination or succession wherby it apeareth to be a Iewish Popish Antichristian devise In the next place let vs heer your nine reasons Mr Bernard which you bring to confute this our faith and most evident truth of God wher first in generall note that wee doe not deny but that the powre of the Church is for order sake committed into some particular persons hands who in the Churches name for the Churches good in the Churches presence are to handle al Church matters therfor whereas your 9-reasons are brought against popularity as you cal it you are to remeÌ„ber that Christs church in several respects is a Monarchie
were not Apostles they Elected Deacons Act 6 Now Election is the very essence of a true Minister The Church admonisheth an Elder Col. 4.17 deposeth false Apostles Reve. 2.2 preacheth prayeth worshippeth wanting Elders Act. 13.22.23 whereas you say that Ministers only make Ministers I answer it is the ground of Succession which I have formerly overthrowne I say that the body of the Church hath in it al ministerial powre immediately from Christ your slender stuffe hath prevailed nothing against this truths of the Lords the vniversity may make a Doctor a Bachelor a Maister yet â—t not any such thing but a compound body having a charter from the King for that puâ—pose a corporation may make a Major Sherifes yet the corporation is not a Major or a Sheriffe So the Church may make Ministers yet the Church it self is not properly an Elder or Deacon or VVidow but a body politique having powre to produce such workes by verue of the charter which Christ hath given vnto it And thus Mr. Ber. I have done with you for this point but Mr. Ains steppeth vp with a new kind of Antichristianisme never heard of before he teacheth vs if we wil beleve him that Christs ruling powre is in the Eldership that the Pope Prelates are not Antichrists for taking into their hands the powre of the multitude but the powre of Christ Heer in the first place we must remember that the powre of Christ which we speak of is a ministerial delegated powre given to man that the question is who is the first subiect of this ministerial powre who receave it immediately from Christ I say the body of the Church is the first subject of it I say that whatsoever the Eldership hath it hath from Christ through the body of the Church by the Churches disposition this if you deny Mr. Ains which I think you do not I say you are therein departed from the faith The body of the Church having al her powre from Christ retaineth keepeth it intire to it self doth not so delegate it to any officers as that she leeseth it is deprived of it neither doth she delegate any powre to her officers but that which she formerly receaved from Christ her head husband Lord For Christ giveth not a double ministerial powre one immediately to the body of the Church which she hath keepeth another mediately to the Eldership by the Churches disposition which the church hath not at al but is only a conduit pipe to conveigh it to the Eldership if you hold such a matter declare it vnto vs out of the word of God we wil receave it when we see it in the meane tyme we hold that whatsoever the Elders have they have it from the Church by delegation that the Church hath it in ther owne hands receaved it from Christ by vertue of the covenant God maketh with it in Christ giving Christ for King Preist Prophet to the Church therfor the Church hath from Christ the head al powre al the members officers of the Church have al their powre from the body which they hold vse in the body not Seperated from the body The Elders as it were the hands are conjoyned to the Church as to the body The body of the Church is conjoyned to Christ the head The body hath no powre devided from the head the hands have no powre divided from the body So a company of men have no powre Seperated from Christ an Eldership hath no powre Seperated from the Church but as all powre floweth from the head to the body then to the haÌ„ds through the body which is first in the body before it come to the hands So al powre Ecclesiastical or ministeriall is derived from Christ to the Church then through the Church to the Elders which is first in the Church before it come to the Elders And as when the hands are cut of the body stil retaineth the powre intire though it waÌ„t hands the powre of the hands is sâ—â—â— in the body So when the Eldership is deposed the Church stil retaineth the powre of the Eldership though it want an Eldership as the hands can do nothing contrary vnto the liking of the whole body but the actions of the hands are by consent of the body So the Eldership can do nothing contrary to the liking of the Church but the actions of the Elders must be by consent of the Church as those hands are worthy to be cut of that rebel against the body wrong it or endaunger it So are these Elders worthy to be cut of from the Church that rebel against the Church wrong it or endaunger it This is the faith which I hold Mr. Ains if you hold any other faith it is not the faith of Christ but let vs see what your book wil aford vs. First you say Christs ruling powre which the papists say is in the pope we say not is in the body of the congregation the multitude but in Christ himself that the Pope is Antichrist not for taking into his hands the powre of the multitude but of Christ to rule governe the Church as head of the same confutat of Mr. Bern. pag. 175. You know Mr. Ains that the Pope doth not assume that powre which Christ as King hath in his owne hands reserved to himself but the pope claymeth to be a ministeriall head vnder Christ having a Ministerial powre given vnto him by succession from Peter although it cannot be denyed but that he doth many actions which are proper works of Christs powre Monarchical proper to himself yet that is but the misinterpretation of his ministerial headship not vnderstaÌ„ding how far that ministerial headship which he challengeth extendeth it is not his proper clayme to Christs office therfore properly the Pope is not Antichrist for challendging Christs Kingly powre proper to himself but for assuming Christs Ministerial powre delegated to his Church although I do not deny but the Pope enlargeth the delegated powre further then Christ hath prescribed in his word So that the Pope is Antichrist in two respects 1. For clayming that powre which Christ hath given to the body of the Church 2. For extending that ministerial powre beyond the compasse which Christ hath limited in the word Secondly you say Christs ruling powre which the Protestants say is in the Bbs. the Prelates we do not say is in the multitude but in Christ himself that the Bbs. are very Antichrists for assuming Spiritual jurisdiction aperteyning to Christ alone confut of Mr. Bern. pag. 175. Heer also you cannot be ignorant Mr. Ains that the Prelates do not challendg that Monarchical powre which is properly inherent in Christs person but renounce it vtterly as confidently as you do but they only challendg that Ministerial powre which Christ as they say hath delegated
Finaly you prove that figuratively the part may cary the name of the whole who denyeth it that therfor the Elders are called the Church I deny that For it foloweth not yet I yeeld you thus much which you shal gaine nothing by that two or three Elders may be termed a church being severaly by theÌ„selves but jointly with the body they are not so so a Christian family or rather the Christians in a family may be truly termed a church severaly yet jointly with the body they are not so For know you Mr. Ber. that the parts of the Church are similares Homogoncae as every part of water is water so every part of a Church if they be a coÌ„munion is a Church being severed necessarily from the whole you say also that a company without officers no where is called a Church Christian families only excepted in al the new Testament except Act. 14 23. by anticipation First you must prove vnto me Mr. Ber. that this place Act. 14.23 is by anticipation For doth it follow bicause heaven earth are so called by anticipation Gen. 1.1 therfor a company wanting officers are called a Church by anticipation besides you speake falsely saying that in al the new testament a company without officers is not caled a church what say you to Act. 19.41 any company of people is called a Câ—â—rch in that place and whereas you confesse that a Christian family is called a Church by the warrant of the new Testament you yeeld the cause For if two or thre faithful persons of a family are a Church then two or thre faithful persons of divers families are a Church or els shew you a found reason to the contrary hence I reason thus They which the Scripture cal a Church are a Church The Scripture calleth two or thre beleevers in a family a Church Therfor two or thre beleevers in a family are a Church Againe If two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church then two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church by proportion But two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church by your confession testimony of the Scripture Therfor two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church But know Mr. Ber. that we strive not about the word but about the matter bee they Ecclesia Synagoge Disciples brethren Saints we regard not the word we say that two or thre Disciples Saints brethren are Sinagoge Ecclesia a congregation with whome Christ is present who have Christs powre vnto whome every member of the body must be promoted for sinne this you neither have disproved nor ever shal be able heer endeth your digression now you come vnto your sixth reason Your 6. reason against popularity is a repetition of things already answered in the fifth reason that Tell the Church is Tel the Governors Therfor I referre the reader thither Your 7. reason against popularity is that it is against the coÌ„maundement of Christ For Heb. 13.17 1. Pet. 5.2 the sheep must obey the shepheard the flock must depend vppon the Pastor he is not to obey them or depend vppon them I answer To the place Heb. 13.17 I say the Apostle doth not intend to teach that the whole body of the Church must yeeld to the voice of the Elders in every thing that they list nor that the Eldership hath in their hands the powre of Christ to rule contrary to their liking For the Lord submitteth both Pastors Flock vnto his owne lawes wil but the intent of the Apostle is to show that al the particular members in al their affaires must submitt themselves to the instruction direction guidance of the Elders For although Christ hath placed the Elders as stewards over the Servants yet he hath not appointed them as Lords over his spowse wife your argument therfor is a fallacian a conjunctione divisione thus Al the particular members must obey the Elders in their lawful instructions their wholsome admonitions severally Ergo the whole body must jointly obey the voice of the Elders Againe the whole Flock consisteth of two parts Officers and the Saints The Saints must obey the Officers that is one part of the Church must be directed by another as the foote by the eye yet the whole body jointly is above any one member or members apart Further al the Saints shal yeeld obedience to Elders in things coÌ„maunded by God the Elders shal al of them obey the voice of the church in things coÌ„maunded by God but the question is how far the sheep must obey the Elders who are shepheards how far the Elders which are the L. Servants must obey the wife spowse of Christ which is the Church For know you Mr. Ber. these things may well stand together that the whole Church may obey the Elders in some things the Elders must obey the body of the Church in other things The other place 1. Pet. 5.2 to en humin may aswel be translated with al your best ability as that dependeth vppon you but I say further that the Flock must depend vppon the shepheards as they are sheep as they al jointly are the wife of the lamb the best members must submit to her voice being the voice of her husband Lord. You eight reason against popularity is this that it is against common sence that the parents should submit to the Children the workman to the work the Seedsman to the corne I answer neither is it reason that the whole body should yeeld to the hand or the Servant to the Mr. Or the wife to the mayd But you know the Church is a body the Elders hands other parts the church is the Mrs. the Elders are Servants but comparisons are not to be vrged further then their intention lest we break them in peeces spoyle the proportion somtyme in some cases the pareÌ„ts may lawfully submit to children the workemen to the work the husbandmeÌ„ to the corne For you know that relations chandg arguments Your ninth last reason against popularity is that it is against the dignity office of true Ministers who represent Christs person having their powre from him which none but such as represent Christ can give or take away But the body of the Church doth not represent Christs person nor ever did depose or make Ministers and bicause the body of the Church are not Ministers therfor they cannot make Ministers such like rotten stuffe I answer That the Ministers do represent Christs person I deny not but avouch that the Church doth much more represent Christs person who is the Spowse wife of Christ that the Ministers have their powre from Christ I deny not but al their powre commeth from Christ through the body of the Church as I have sufficiently proved already That the Church hath made Ministers I have shewed Act. 1. they chose an Apostle when as yet they
you give the Holy Ghost the lie imputing error vnto the word of truth But you wil say if men be not subjects of Christs Kingdome ther is no salvation for them I deny that wil you condemne al the Iewes Turkes Papists in the world yet I say they are no subjects of Christs Kingdome which is the true visible Church I pray you therfor be as good to vs as you are to your selâ—e in that censure wherfor we must remember to distinguish betwixt the visible Church which is Christs Kingdome the Catholique Church whiâ—â— is invisible The visible Church hath in it a visible communion visible sensible ordinances for men to walk in a visible fayth expressed in the outward declarations thereof in confession profession of the truth this visible Church must we joyne to live in this is the sheepfold wherin Christ foldeth his sheep into this sheepfold both sheep shepheard must enter by the dore not clyme vp another way as theeves robbers doe Of al those that live continue in this true visible Church we are bound to beleeve holmes fayth election in particular Eph 1.1.4 Now the Catholique Church which is invisible is the comprehension of al the elct in al ages places whose persons are vnknowne to vs such secreat things the L. hath reserved to himself concealed from our knowledg therfor we are not to search after them but must walk in that way which he hath taught in his word wher so much of his wil as is fit for vs to know is revealed now I would have you manifest to me two things concerning this point one is that the Catholique Church is Christs Kingdome another is that al that are on t of the visible Church are condemned I for my part hold the contrary viz First that the visible Church truly constituted is the only Kingdome of Christ which he at the day of judgment shal give vp into the handes of his Father 1. Cor. 15.24 that therfor they who are not members of Christs true visible Church are no subjects of Christs Kingdome Secondly notwithstanding that ther are many who are no members of the visible Church therfor no subjects of Christs Kingdome who notwithstanding aperteyne to the L Election are within the compasse of the Catholique Church out of which ther is no salvation Now Mr. Bern. if you have any thing to object against this truth let vs have it I pray you that we may receave instruction reformation from you you assume great dexteritie in diving into mens arguments I pray you dive into the bottome of this point discover the error therof if you be able if not lay your hand vppon your mouth give glorie to God confesse your ignorance errors Paralleles Censures Observations aperteyning to the Fourth Section In this Section Mr Bern. saith that it is error to hold that those that are not of a true constituted Church are no subjects of Christs Kingdome In his book intituled the Seperatists Schisme pag. 80. 81. He affirmeth the same thing in these words viz That such as are not of a particular constituted Church to wit such a one as theirs is are no subjects of Christs Kingdome Mr. Ainsworth answering Mr. Bernard pag. 173. vseth these wordes Neither is this position set downe in our wordes to my knowledg if therefor Mr. Bern. were not a caviller he would not have reckoned this among our errors Although Mr. Bern. oppugneth this truth Mr. Ainfw forsaketh the defence therof yet I stil defend it as the vndoubted truth of God First therfor I wil expound the true meaning thereof then also answer Mr. Bern. cavils cautions I say not therfor as Mr. Bern. ignorantly vaynly captiously conceâ—veth that whosoever is not actually a joyned member of a true visible Church not living in communion with that church is no subject of Christs Kingdome but I say thus they that are not of a true constituted Church are no subjects of Christs Kingdom now it is one thing to be in a true church as a member therof actual walking in presence coÌ„munioÌ„ therewith another thing to be of a true church which one may be eyther as yet actually vnjoyned or being a joyned member actually yet absent in regard of bodily presence that one vnioyned actually may yet be of a true visible church I declare by divers particulars as first one that by violence is deteyned from a true constituted church yet may be of it in desire wil affection purpose though actually vnioyned the Lord accepting the wil for the deed when it cannot be performed Againe when as yet ther is no true visible church established actually a man may be of it in that he would be joyned vnto it if it â—ad any real existence So the Martyrs in Q. Maryes dayes may be said to be of a true visible church both for that they would have actualy joyned to the true coÌ„stituted church if it had beeÌ„ established as also for that they in wil purpose desired so to do although violently they were deteyned by imprissonment Further they that are of the true saith which is professed in the true Church may be said to be of that true church which faith is not a thing invisible but visible sensible as namely a man Seperated from all false churches professing the true visible faith of the church holding it vnlawful in regard of some corruption which he seeth in the true church to joyne therevnto may yet be said to be of the true church Lastly if some brethren though but two or three walk together in holy communion they are a true Church although perhaps they have not solemnely entred covenant yet ther communion in holy exercises is a declaration that they have contracted together though weakely corruptly yet truly So that these particulars being wel weighed may sulficiently informe you of my meaning but Mr. Bern you have in your book quoted this point otherwise then I have propounded expounded it in my lettre that in two particulars viz 1. in saying a particular constituted Church 2. in adding these wordes Such a one as theirs is For ther is asmuch difference betwixt a true constituted Church a particular constituted Church as ther is betwixt a man this man or that man the one is species theother individinum it is evident that a man may be of a true constituted Church yet not of a particular constistuted Church as may be perceaved by the 4. particulars before mentioned Againe in adding these wordes viz such a one as theirs is after a scoffing vprayding disdainful manner he seeketh to draw into hatred abhomination the true Church of Christ but the tyme wil come when the Lord wil reward every man according to his workes In the second place let vs consider of Mr. Bern. cavils cautions which are 4. in nom
preisthood of Aarons Family was the Lords ordinance sometyme but the popish Sacrificing preisthood in the mayne substantial parts therof is not only mans device but infinitely impious blasphemously derogating from the honour dignity of Christs Sacrifice preisthood which is aparabatos intransitive Heb. 7.24 according to the order of Melchisedech seing the popish Sacrificing preisthood is in the very essence of it false how can the English prelacy preisthood Deaconry which issued from that Romish preisthood be any other but a sacrificing preisthood although the English prelates have cast away that essential Sacrificing property or forme rather of the Romish preisthood have reduced it to a better temper yet that wil not serve the turne for al that they have in their prelacy preisthood Deaconry they had frō Rome or els where If from Rome then their prelacy preisthood Deaconry is absolutely Romish no other if elswhere then their Succession is gone If both from Rome els where let them declare that Ridle vnto vs. The third Objection The presbyters may have ordination or imposition of hands from the Romish preisthood yet not their office For that may come from heaven or by some extraordinary meanes even as the Lord raised vp some men extraordinarily in these last tymes to restore the truth of doctryne to reduce things to the Apostolique primitive institution as amongst others Hus Luther the rest Answer to the third Objection It is straunge that a man shal have imposition of hands from one his office from another Besides it is contrary to the nature of Succession wherein the partie that ordeyneth giveth the office ministeriall powre to him that is ordeyned for that it the thing that is pleaded that Christs ministeriall powre commeth by Succession through ordination of precedent presbyters It contradicteth their owne ground therefore to say that imposition of hands is from a popish preist and the true office from some other meanes But let vs inquire what that other meanes may be To say that Christs Ministeriall powre is from heaven is not denyed but the question is What is the instrument or meanes which Christ hath appointed to conveigh that Ministeriall powre vnto man kind And who are they that first receave it from Christs hand out of heaven Or what is proton dektikon the first subject of this ministerial powre We say the Church or two or three faithful people Seperated frō the world joyned together in a true covenant have both Christ the covenant promises the ministerial powre of Christ given to them that they are the body that receave from Christs hand out of heaven or rather from Christ their head this ministerial powre you say not so but this ministerial powre commeth by succession from the ministery which is the first subject of this powre that al this powre is derived from man to man from the Apostles hands through al the Preists hands of Rome the Prelates hands of England to you Mr. Bern. your line pedigree of Preisthood is lineally descended from Peter or Paul c. to you through so many generations of popish preists as have succeded from Peters person to your person Even as Annas Cayaphas descended lineally from Aaron only this is the difference that the succession of Annas Cayaphas was by genealogie or generation yours is by succession of ordination or imposition of hands therfor bicause you see that you fal vnder this foule absurdity that your Preisthood must be of necessity of the same kind that the popish preisthood is you have invented a new trick to say that it commeth from heaven extraordinarily with Hus Luther and the rest of those glorious witnesses which the Lord in these last tymes raised vp to the destruction of the man of sinne VVhich if it be so Then say I shew your succession from Luther Hus Prage c. Or els Nechemiah will putt you from your preisthood The fourth Objection But every King in his dominions is appointed by Christ to be a head ministerial to the Church al the Preists of that country do receave their ministerial powre from the King by the ordination of the Bbs. vnto whome the King hath committed the dispensation of that powre so that the King being the Lords Lieftenant in his owne dominions hath this ministerial powre from Christ the Bbs. from the King the Preists from the Bbs. the Church from the Preists Answer to the fourth Objection If the King of every country hath Christs ministerial powre given to him immediately from heaven that the Clergie of that nation have Christs ministerial powre from the King then these consequents folow which are intolerable absurdities 1. The King of every country is a person civil Ecclesiastical having al civil ecclesiastical powre that immediately from Christ 2. The King of every country can preach administer the Sacraments exercise Spirituall jurisdiction excommunicate c. 3. The King of every country can make ordeyne Ministers 4. The King of every country is a Pope or Patriarch in his owne territories and Dominions How these points wil agree with the Analogie of faith let every man judg so give sentence whither this objection conteyne any the least shew of truth in it yea or nay Now what authority the Lord hath given every King in his owne dominions I leave to be descussed in his proper place viz in the 15. Section of this lettre to Mr. Bern. The fifth Objection But the ministery is now extraordinarily raised vp For as in the first planting of the Churches the Lord Iesus vsed the extraordinary ministery of Apostles Prophets Evangelists to publish the Gospel to the world to plant Churches so after the Apostacy of Antichrist in the restoring of the truth the Lord vseth the same extraordinary ministerie not indued with those extraordinary gifts which they had but apointed by the L. for the same purposes viz the planting of true Churches the revealing of his truth Answer to the fifth Objection First the Ministers of England namely you Mr. Ber. among the rest do not chalendg to be Apostles Prophets Evangelists but you say you are true presbyters or Pastors of particular true visible Churches therfor this objection helpeth you nothing if it were yeelded you Secondly you cannot maintayne your ordinary ministerie as succeding by ordination from these supposed Apostles Evangelists Prophets for then you must acknowledg the prelates of England to be Apostles Prophets Evangelists whereas they doe challendg no such thing But only maintayne themselves to be ordinary Bbs. the ordinary Successors of the Apostles neither do they intend to make you ministers as Apostles but as Bbs. Thirdly ther is none of the Reformists that ever I heard of that vndertake as Apostles Prophets Evangelists to ordeyne Elders Finaly how can any of you be Apostles Prophets or Evangelists who stand members of
an Aristocraty a Democratie In respect of Christ the King it is a Monarchy of the Eldership an Aristocratie of the brethren joyntly a Democratie or Popular government For Christ the King he ruleth by his owne lawes Officers The body of the Church the spowse of Christ ruleth as the wise vnder the husband according to the wil appointment of her husband The Elders rule as the stewards of Christ the King of the church which is the wise or spowse of the King Now as it is vnreasonable to appoint the steward or Servant of the King either over the King himself or over the Queen who is the Kings wife So is it Antichristian to place the Elders as Rulers over the whole body of the Church although every particular person and cause is subject to be ordered by that authority which the Church joyntly receaved from Christ and delegateth to them wee say therefore that the body of the Church hath all powre immediately from Christ and the Elders have al their powre from the body of the Church which powre of the Eldership is not exercized nor can not be vsed over or against the whole body of the Church for that is an Antichristian vsurpation but only it is exercised over and against particular persons and disorders arising in the Church the Eldership herein dealing for the body in the publique workes thereof breefly therefore to answer in generall to all your nine reasons vsed against popularity wee dispute not whither the Elders must rule or not but wee dispute who have the negative voice in their hands or who have the determining powre in them or who give the definitive sentence in al matters VVee say that the definitive sentence the determining powre the negative voice is in the body of the church not in the Elders yet we say the Elders are to lead governe al persons causes of the Church but to lead governe contrary to the definition voice of the body that we deny that we say is Antichristian Your first reason Mr. Bernard is that popularity is contrary to Gods order vnder the law and before the law vnder the law the powre of Governing was in the Levites befor the law it was in the first borne this governing powre was not receaved from the people vnder the law but from the Lord by Moses but the people only approved the Lords appointment I answer The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did type two things 1. That Priviledg and prerogative which Christ Iesus hath who is the first borne having the preeminence in all things Colos 1.18.1 Cor. 15.20 Revel 1.5 For Christ is the first most noble in the Church even the head Fountayne of al heavenly grace excellency 2. The first borne and so by consequent the Levites did shadow out the church Exod. 4.22.23 who is the first borne of al the men of the earth most deere and pretious to the Lord So that this reason of yours may thus be retorted vppon your selsf If the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the preheminence then Christ the visible Church which were shadowed out by the first borne by the Levites have the preminence powre in the new Testament But the first borne before the law the Levites for the first borne vnder the law had the powre preheminence by your owne confession Ergo Christ the visible church from Christ shadowed out by the first borne the Levites have the powre preheminence in the new Testament Remember for this particular that the first borne the first Fruites the Preists Levites Rings Princes of Iudah did al type forth vnto vs in the new testamēt the visible church the Saints next vnder Christ who is the head to the body of the Church as these scriptures do manifestly declare 1. Pet. 2.5 9. Revel 1.5 6. Col. 1.18 1. Cor. 15.20 The second of your nine reasons against popularity is that it is without warrant in the Apostles tyme The Apostles alwayes begune continued and composed church matters the body of the congregation were only made acquaynted with matters aliberty granted them to chose officers but they did never make any themselves nor attēpted any thing of themselves This argument Mr. Bern. is partly vntrue partly against your self Vntrue it is thus far forth that you say the body of the congregation never attempted any thing without Elders For I demaund of you what did the 120. persons in the first of the acts did they not chuse an Apostle into office ordeyne him but they had no Elders as yet for the holy Ghost was not come downe vppon them so the◠were no Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors Teachers Eph. 4.8.11 did not the Churches of Lystra Iconium Antiochia think you worship God admonish excommunicate during the tyme of the Apostles absence from them when as yet they had no Elders Act. 14 21-23 did not the Churches in Creta think you worship God governe in the absence of the Apostles Titus when as yet Elders were not appointed Tit. 1 5. you cannot deny that the Churches were established before they had officers if you do the Apostle saith that they that are to be chosen Elders must not be newly planted into the faith 1. Tim. 3.6 so by consequent from the tyme of establishing Churches til Election of officers ther must needes be a space of tyme for tryal of mens gifts conversation constancy in the faith during which tyme the Apostles being absent from the Churches I make no doubt but they did worship God performe the other parts of their Spiritual communion it they did so then I say look how many Churches were established by the Apostles So many examples ther are of the congregation attempting every thing almost without Elders so the Second reason of yours conteyneth so many vntruths as ther were Churches planted by the Apostles in the Acts who did not the first day of their planting institute their Elderships but some certayne competent space of tyme afterward wherin ther might be sufficient tryal knowledg of mens gifts qualifications fit for office this may suffice for your vntruths Now further your reason is against your self in this particular wherein you yeeld the cause that the body of the congregation had a liberty to chose their officers whence I reason thus against you They that have liberty to chose their owne officers to worship God publiquely before they have officers they have al the rest of Christs powre ministerial befor they have officers But the body of every congregation hath powre to worship God publiquely as you see have liberty to chose their owne officers as you confesse yet want Elders Ergo the body of every congregation hath al the rest of Christs ministerial powre before they have officers I say the body of
the Church hath powre which powre commeth after into act execution when her officers are chosen viz The powre of baptizing administring the Lords Supper yet it may also be questioned whither the Church may not as well administer the Seales of the covenant before they have Officers as Pray Prophesy Elect Officers and the rest seing that to put the Seales to the covenant is not a greater work then publishing the covenant or Election of officers or excommunication The third of your 9. reasons against popularity is that it is against Christs commission granted to the Apostles their Successors as Timothie Titus the cheef ministers of the Gospel that therfor the place 1. Cor. 5.4 must be expounded of the Elders as you say the Apostle sheweth 1. Cor. 2.6 Wel Mr. Bern. this is old rusty rotten popish stuffe even as auncient as the Church of Antichrist some of it viz that of succession which hath already receaved answer the contrary been proved at large in this Section whither I referre you But heer are certaine vntruths avouched by you which must be answered viz one is that Christs commission was granted only to the Apostles their Successors I have proved already in the former reasons that the commission was given to the body of the Church expounding those foure places which you quote viz Mat. 28.19 16.19 Iohn 20 21-23 Marc. 13.34 which also is further cleeâ—ed for that the twelve were not yet Apostles but only nominated to the office for they were indued with powre froÌ„ on high vppon the day of Pentecost Luk. 24.49 compared with Act. 2.4 Eph 4.8.11 as also for that Cleopas Mary Magdalene others besides the eleven were present when the commission was given vnto the Disciples finally bicause the Apostles were the Church representative yea every one of them having in them powre to performe al the offices of al officers members of the Church the Church only is the true Successor of the Apostles no one man oâ— Minister whatsoever seing no one person hath powre to performe al offices of all officers and members which notwithstanding the whole Church joyntly hath A second vntruth is this that you say the Apostles committed that commission given them by Christ not to the body of the Church but to Timothie Titus ther successors as appeareth 1. Tim. 6.13.14 as you say wherto I answer that the Apostles leave the powre which they receaved from Christ joyntly with the rest of the Disciples in the hands of the Church not of Timothie Titus only that chardg which Paul giveth to Timothie respecteth the whole Epistle and all the contents thereof which aperteyne to all sorts of persons in the Church aswell as to Timothie as may be seen in the whole second Chapter how prove you that Timothy an Evangelist Succeeded Paull an Apostle Or that the Elders of Ephesus succeded Timothie an Evangelist A third vntruth is this that you say the place 1. Cor. 5.4.13 must be vnderstood of Elders as you say may appeare 1. Cor. 2.6 wherto I answer that this is a prety trick but it wil not serve your turne to turne away the truth evidence to this place For first the Epistle is written to the whole body of the Church al the circumstances of the Chap. 5. teach that the whole body was leavened that their rejoycing was not good that they ought not to be mingled with the brethren that were fornicators that they ought not to eate the L. Supper with such persons that they have powre to judg them that are within that they must cast out from among them that incestuous person whereas you would needes by one phrase viz the rebuke of many 2. Cor. 2.6 expound this general as spoken of many Elders not many brethren I say herein you coyne a false exposition For doth it follow that bicause the rebuke was delivered by many either brethren or Elders who are to leade in al publique actions therfor the Apostle enjoyneth the Elders only to excommunicate or bicause some only pronounce the rebuke the sentence of excommunication therfor they only have powre to decree it I desire you would make these consequents hang or depend necessarily vppon ther antecedents or els you doe but wrest the Scriptures to your destruction besides that place 2. Cor. 2.6 doth not teach who either decreed or pronounced his excommunication but only who rebuked him for his sinne which were many Elders if you will For I take it the place is manifest that he was not excommunicate bicause he repented vppon the reproof which the Apostle saith is sufficient And sometyme in the Scripture many signifieth all all signifieth many as these places declare Matt. 3.5 Roman 5.18.19 Therefore this quirck off yours is but a meer Sophisticall cavill to put of the truth The fourth of your 9. reasons against popularity is that the place of Ephes 4.11.12 is against it for ther the Apostle declareth say you that gifts for the ministerie are given to the Ministers for the Church not to the Church for the Ministers and that therefore the powre of Christ is not given to the body of the Church but only to the Elders this you shew by a similie from the parts of the body which do not receave their qualityes facultyes or gifts from the body but from God To this reason I answer that you declare your self to be either blind or willfully to shut your eyes against the truth evidence of this place For it is as cleer as the shining of the Sunne in the Firmament of heaven against your exposition objection For I pray you in good sooth doth this argument follow viz Christ giveth gifts vnto meÌ„ not by the mediation of the body of the Church therfor Christ giveth his ministerial powre to the officers not to the body yet this is the force of your argument which may for more evidence be framed thus If Christ give gifts to the officers of the Church not by the Church but immediately by from himself Then Christ giveth powre of binding losing to the officers of the Church not by the meanes of the church but by such meanes as God hath appointed that is as I gesse by Succession But you say the Antecedent is true by the place of the Eph 4. And I say the consequent or conclusion followeth not vppon the antecedent but it is meerly asyllogiston But I will declare the inconsequence more fully The Lord he giveth gifts to men either ordinarily or extraordinarily Extraordinarily he gave gifts to men in the primitive Churches Ordinarily he giveth gifts to men by study paynes by nature so he gave the gifts of Tongs and Prophesy extraordinarily to the primittive Churches be giveth the same gifts now ordinarily by meanes of Study and the help of naturall witt How will it follow that bicause the Lord gave gifts therefore he gave
to the Apostles their Successors the L.Bbs. neither can you with any good conscience say that they clayme Christs Kingly powre but only they are Antichrists as the Pope is for two causes 1. For clayming that powre Ministeriall which Christ hath given to the body of the Church 2. For enlarging that ministerial powre beyond that compasse which Christ in his word hath determined Thirdly you say Neither that ruling powre of Christ which the Puritanes say is in the presbytery do we say is in the multitude For we acknowledg Christ to have ordeyned a presbytery or Eldership that in every Church for to teach rule them by his owne word lawes vnto whome al the multitude the members the Saints ought to obey submit themselves as the Scriptures teach confut of Mr. Bern. pag. 176. VVee say Christs ruling powre is originally fundamentally in the body of the Church the multitude we acknowledg further that the Elders receave by delegation powre from the body of the Church which powre ministerial in the hands of the Elders is not so large as that which is in the body but it is rather a leading powre then a ruling powre neither are the Elders in al the new testament to my knowledg called Rulers archontes but overseers leaders Elders prohistamenoi wherby the holy Ghost would teach that their powre is not to rule but to leade direct I do therefore vtterly disclaime this your error Mr. Ains as one part of Antichristianisme in your Church but you had need expound it wel for the satisfaction of the brethren of the Seperation least you here in destroy your constitution before you be aware VVhat we hold concerning the Presbytery I have delivered partly in that which before I have written in answer to Mr. Bern. partly in that which I lately published concerning the differences of the Churches of the Seperation in the second part the first Section Chap. 5. 6. wherfor if you hold that Lordly vsurped Antichristian powre of your Eldership to be that ruling powre which the word of God warranteth it shal be your part to justifie it to rebuke al that gainst and it for herein wee vtterly disclayme your judgment practise we maintaine that the powre of the Eldership is a leading directing overseeing powre ministery or service both in the Kingdom Preisthood of the Church that the negative voice the last definitive determining sentence is in the body of the Church wherto the Eldership is bound to yeeld that the Church may do any lawful act without the Elders but the Elders can do nothing without the approbation of the body or contrary to the body The eighth Section In the next place followeth your second position which is this in your copie In holding that one sinne of one man publiquely obstinately stood in not reformed by a true constituted Church doth so pollute it that none may communicate with it in the holy things of God til the partie offending be by the Church put out after lawful conviction you say is error I say it is the most comfortable holy truth wee hold in our walking one with another in communion of Gods ordinances This truth ariseth from the former ground that al the members of the Church have powre to the censures of admonition excommunication to bind lose For observe I pray you that every brother is bound to admonish his brother for a fault he observeth in him if he reforme not he must take one or two witnesses admonish him if he reforme not yet he must bring the matter before the Church suppose the Church consist of 12. persons as at Ephesus Act. 19.7 The matter being before the Church the eleven deale with the twelvth discover his sin convince it to his conscience he refuseth to â—eer them but despiseth the admonitions I say if they retaine him stil in communion they consent to his sinne For as the civill Magistrate in pardoning willfull murther consenteth to it bicause the murtherer should die Even so the Church suffering the vnrepentaunt persone among them consent to his sinne and are polluted with it and consent to all the profanation and violation of the Holy things committed by that vnrepentaÌ„t person For God hath commaunded the church to watch over their brethren if they do not they hate their brother in suffering sinne to rest vppon him God hath commaunded that no vncleane person should medle with the Holy things if they doe they profane polute the Holy things offering violence to the Lords ordinances But it may be you wil say that by this meanes we assume to our selves a kind of perfection puritie in that we wil have no sinners among vs I answer that you must distinguish betwixt our persons our communion we confesse our persons severally every one of vs to be subject to sinne that we doe sinne dayly bicause of our sinning nature the Lord hath appointed the ordinances of the visible Church as helps meanes to subdue this sinning nature of ours especially these ordinances of admonition excommunication which are to be vsed administred vppon al by al as occasion is offered Now this is the perfection puritie of our communion that we suffer no vnrepented sinne no vnrepentant sinner among vs but either we cast out the sinne by repentance or the sinner vnrepentant by excommunication that our coÌ„munion may be pure holy the church without spot or wrinckle that we may be a new lump dayly vnleavened the leaven being purged out of vs continually oh Mr. Ber. if you knew but the comfort powre of the L. ordinances of admonition excommunication as we do blessed be our good God in some measure that growth reformation which is in some of vs thereby you would be so wonderfully ravished with the powre of Gods ordinances that you would acknowledg the Church to be terrible as an armie with banners yet amyable lovely comely beauteful in so much as Christ himself saith that the love of the church is faire that she woundeth his hart with one of her eyes in regard of the beautyful holy communion which is dayly maintayned in her by vertue of the censures but your confused assemblies al the members of them not only omit but reject yea oppose al these holy ordinances which Christ hath given to his Church therby you proclaime to all the world that you are of Belial that is without the yoke of Christs ordinances you cast away from you these cordes bandes wherwith wee are bound one to another knit faster faster vnto Christ our head therfor you living thus without the yoke out of the Lords Holy order having broken these bandes cast the cordes froÌ„ you mingling your selves vnto joyning with al manner of profane persons that violate al Gods ordinances how can we have any