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, Iudg, 11.13. &c. 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; theirs 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 wch 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) [Page 2] 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.
1.First, for the Scornful that printed those articles, they Lawnes book. pag. 78. 82. bear the world in hand, as if the Congregation wherof I am, and my self had sued others at the law, for the meeting howse: wheras the contrary was publikly agreed in our Church, that we would rather bear the wrong, than trouble the Magistrate with our controversie: neyther have we ever commenced such a suit. 2. But wheras two of our brethren and a widow, were cheif owners of the building, they sought first in private freindly manner to come to agreement with their opposite brethren, but could not; then they desired to put it to the arbitrement of indifferent citizens, but the other party refused: wherupon our brethren signifyed to vs, that they must seek help of the Magistrate, for the estate of some of them was such as they could not bear the loss and dāmage. And asked us, if the churches right were caled in question▪ (for our adversaries plea was the church the church,) what should be answered before the magistrate? We, with signification as before, that we would rather suffer wrong, then sue at law; yet could not hinder them of seeking for their particular right: & if in so doing the churches right were called in question, that then some certayn appointed, should answer for the same. 3. Those our brethren (before they went to the Iudges,) intreated the help of the Burgemasters, the cheif of the City: who laboured by perswasion with our Opposites, to put the matter to the arbitrement of good men chosen by both sides, but they stil peremptorily refused. 4. When it was brought before the Iudges, they also at first both perswaded unto, and nominated [Page 3] two indifferent men to hear the case: but when our opposers came before them, they refused to stand to their arbitrement. The Iudges the second time appointed them, with a mulct or forfeit upō those that refused their arbitrement: but our adverse partie, persisted in their refusal as before: and urged sentence of the Magistrates, and pleaded that they which build on another mans ground, are by law to loose their building; which plea they made, because the assurance of the ground was made in the name of one man onely, (now among them,) whose name was used but in trust, for any other might have had the same as wel as hee, as was proved before the Magistrate by sufficient witness. Now unto these Arbiters appointed, did our brethren willingly referr the cause, and to them (inquiring of the differences) were those Articles exhibited: which it seemeth those Libellers, or their Scribe, by some means that wee know not of, procured a copy of, and so printed them. What cause now have these our opposers, to find such fault with our giving out those articles, which we were constreyned by them selves to doo, unless we should have suffred the truth to have bene troden down? They rather have cause to acknowledge their own stiff & refractary cariage, who would not yeild to any good counsel given them, by our brethren, by Arbiters, or by Magistrates; til law forced them therunto: and so have occasioned many wayes, our cōmon adversaries to rejoyce.
3. But we have not (sayth the pag. 17. 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 pag. 31. after they urge agayn this point, that we leav the Treatise unanswered, which was purposely written upon that occasion and argument. I answer. 1. We handled and justified the causes for which we separated, by word of mouth in much disputing, before we left them: and this for them was as we ought, and sufficient, according to the Apostles practise, Act. 1 [...].8.9. And now we are by their importunacie, caled to handle and justifie them before the world in writing: which whither we doo as we ought, the sequel shal shew, to the judicious reader. 2. It is not we, but they which have gone about to possess the world with other matters: for the things we charge them with, themselves in effect acknowledge; and as wel as they can doo defend them. But their [Page 4] declaration against us in the Treat. on Mat. 18. is defective; and the 7. points they article Advertis. p. 27. &c. 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 Apol, p. 65. 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, Ier. 1.9.10 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 1 Cor. 15 13, 14. &c. 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 [Page 5] 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 shalbe 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, [Page 6] 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 pag. 73. 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 wch 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 cōmon 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 pag. 62.63. 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 [Page 7] of that argumēt 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 shalbe 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 pag. 18.19 shevveth by examples of troubles in [...]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 Cōment in Tit. 1.5. 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 excōmunicated the East churches, and had doon it, but Euseb. l▪ 5. c. 26. that Irenaeus blamed him and stayed it. Thus ambition having vvrung the povver [Page 8] 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.
Discourse of troub. at Frankford. p. 11 [...]. &c.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 shalbe 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, [Page 9] 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 shalbe openly denounced excommunicate: which excommunicatiō, seing it is the uttermost penaltie of ecclesiastical power, shal not therfore be executed until the matter be heard by the whole Church, or such as it shal specially appoint ther unto.
62. If al the ministers and seniors [which have authority to hear and determine &c.] be suspected, or found parties, or if any appeal be made from them: that then such appeal be made to the body of the congregation, the ministers, seniors, and parties excepted: and that the body of the congregation may appoint so many of the congregation to hear & determine the sayd matter or matters, as it shal seem good to the Congregation.
65. That the Ministers and Seniors, and every of them, be subiect to ecclesiastical discipline, and correction, as other private members of the Church be.
67. If any controversie be upon the doubtful meaning of any word or words in the discipline; that first it be referred to the ministers & seniors. And if they cannot agree therupon, then the thing to be brought and referred to the whole congregation.
These and the like things were agreed of by that church, to suppress the exorbitant power which the ministers then chalenged: wherby the reader may see, 1. what the learned and most conscionable of the church of England held heretofore: which if they had continued in, would have freed them of al antichristian prelacie, the bane of so many churches. 2. That this opinion of the churches power above the Elders, is not new, or first professed by us, as some doo reproch us. 3. And that these Advertisers, which now oppose against us, if they had looked upon the examples which themselves alledge, might have seen their errours resisted by others, against which the Lord hath now caled us also to witness. He vouchsafe to be with us in this busynes; and guide my hart and hand, to defend his truth.
Of the Letter by M. Iohnson answered and published, and by H. Ainsworth now defended. Wherin the Articles of difference between both parties, are set down and discussed.
THree things are to be treated of. 1. The points wherin they are gone frō their former profession. 2. The points wherin they now charge us to differ from our former profession. 3. The conditions of peace, which they refused.
For an entrance into this controversie, M. Iohnson gives 5. observations. Advertis. p. 25. 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 Isa. 9.6. government is; and hereof ther was no controversie. Sometime it is spoken of the ministerial 1. Tim. 5.17. 1. Cor. 12.28. ruling and governing the church by Elders: neyther of this doe we make any question; but hold (as Confes. art. 19. heretofore) that Christ governeth his church outvvardly by their ministration. Sometime men use it generally for the whole outward politie, power, and (as many cal it) discipline of the Church: and about this in part our cōtroversie was. But I wil manifest the frawd. We in our published writings, distinguish the government, and the power: acknowledging Confess. art. 17.19.26. government to be by the officers; but Conf. art. 22.23.24. Apol. p 46.47.60.62. 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 [Page 11] this distinction is in one particular, by themselves acknowledged, in the same book: Advertis. p. 46. 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 Act. 15.7.12.22.23.25 1. Cor. 5.1 [...] 13. 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 shalbe 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 shalbe manifested. But what doe vve except? is it not from our former Articles, and Apologie confirmed by scriptures, from vvhich these are departed: in penning also vvherof these that thus vvrite, had a principal hand? So they doo hereby not onely joyn vvith our cōmon D. Some. M. Giss. M. Bern. adversaries, vvho intvvite us vvith Anabaptistrie: but impute weaknes to their [Page 12] ovvn former vvritings and cause, vvherin more strength of truth hath appeared then ever they shalbe 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 Confess. art. 24. Apol. p. 62.63. 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 [Page 13] 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 De Verbo Dei, lib. 3. c. 5. expoundeth this Tel the Church, that is the Prelate, or the Congregation of Prelates; & De autor. eccles. cō tra Whitaker. l. 1. c. 1▪ S. 5. 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. 12.1 [...].—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 [Page 14] willingly grāt: 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 [...]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 Num. 16.9. 2. Chro. 35.3. did the Preists and Levites:) with the autoritie of the Elders the Magistrates, that Ier. 26.10. 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 Eph. 2.11.12. uncircumcised, without Christ, without Israels politie, without covenāts of promise, without hope, without God. But now in Christ they were united & brought neer; but wherunto, to circumcision? nay, he sayth elswhere, Gal. 5.2. if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing? or, to the ordinances of worship in the Temple? nay, for he sayth Heb. 13.10. we have an aultar, wherof they have no authoritie to eat, which serv in the tabernacle. Or were they now to goe up, as Psal. 122.4 5. did the Tribes to the earthly Ierusalem, where thrones of judgment were set, thrones for the howse of David? nothing so, for Christ was Dan. 9.24 26. Luk. 19.41.44. to destroy both Citie & Sanctuarie; so to force the Iewes to an end of their politie. But now the Ephesians were come Ephe. 2.18 unto the Father, by one Spirit, and unto Christ, who verse 15. abrogated through his flesh the hatred, that is, the law of cōmandements, which stood in ordinances; and was Heb. 3.2. faithful, as Moses, in al his house: and to be citizens with Eph. 2.19 the Saincts [Page 15] 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 1. Cor. 3.10. &c. doctrine which they taught of Christ and of the ordinances of his Testament, which is Heb. 12.27.28. a kingdome that cannot be shakē, as was the cōmon-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 Advertis. p. 32.33.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 Common [...]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 Plutarch. in Cat. 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 Rhem. annot. on Mat 23.2. the see of Rome, in the new law, to be answerable to the chair of Moses. Cardinal Bellarmine De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. maketh his first argument for the Popes judging of controversies, from the Preist & [Page 16] 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 Bellar. de verb. Dei, l. 3. c. 4. 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 Perpet. goverm. ch. 4. 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. Prolect. de Rom. Pont. Con. 4. Q. 8. c. 2. [...] 2. D. Whitakers, Animadv, ad contr. 1. l. 3. c. 4. et ad. cont. 3. l. 1, c. 2. 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 T. C. 2. Repl. p. 614 the argument is not good from civil government to ecclesiastical. When Bellarmine De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9. allegeth the civil Monarchies to justify the ecclesiastical: Iunius answereth, the Animad. in Bellar. ibid. exāple 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 Iosh. 23.2. Elders, Heads, Judges, & Officers. The Judges agayn differing both in number and power. In Deut. 16.18. all the cities throughout the tribes, were Judges, (which the Iew [...]doctors call the [...]almud Babylon. tract. Sanhedrin, c. 1. lesser Sanhedrin or Session, and say it consisted of 23. Iudges,) and Deut. 16.18. Officers which Maimon. in Sanhedrin, c. 1. they say were weaponed, and executed the Iudges sentences. In the cheif City Deut. 17.8 9.2. Chrō. 19.8. Ierusalem were also Iudges and Preists, for the weightiest and hard causes: this Talm. ibidem. they caled the great Sanhedrin, or Session, and it had Num. 11. [...]4. &c. 71. Iudges, of whom first Moses was cheif, and sucsessively, one caled Maimon, ibidē. Nasi the Prince, next whom they place Ibidē. A [...] beth di [...], the Father of the judgment hall, besides other officers as [Page 17] two Scribes to write the causes of the condemned & the absolved: Maimō. Sanhedrin. chapt. 15. Sh [...]lc [...]h [...]th din, the Messenger (or Angel) of the Court, even as ther was also in other cases Shelia [...]h [...]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 Talmud Sanhedr. c. 1. of three, for lesser strifes and mony matters▪ caled d [...]ies m [...]monoth: the lower Synedrion of 23. judged matters of life and death di [...]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 1. Chron. 23. & 24. &. 25. & 26. chapt. 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 Act. 15.21. alwayes lecturers and preachers of the law and prophets, in every citie, and in Ierusalem it self were Act. 24.12. many synagogues, besides the Temple there. Now they that would proportion their power with Israel, showld shew whither they mean al these fore-spokē, or but some. They should tel us to whō 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 p [...]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 Mat. 5.22. hel fyre, there spoken of: neyther could they by Moses law, condemn a man to death for unadvised anger, as Christ there [Page 18] God would doo: neyther was every mā, 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, Talmud Bab. tract. Sanhedrin. c. 1.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 Exod. 18.22. Deut. 17.8.9. 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, verse 21. whosoever killeth shalbe culpable of judgment, that is, he should Exod. 21.12. 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 Mat. 5.22. 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 verse 25. the prison of hel: how ever such synns were not punishable by men. But in Mat. 18. Christ speakketh of judgments Mat. 18.17.18. on earth, in this life; and that not of the civil punishments by the Magistrates sword; but of verse 18. binding and loosing by the word of God, to be performed by verse 17. the Church, that is, (as Paul 1. Cor. 5.4.5.12. 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 Luk. 4.20. 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 cōmon vvealth; ther must be more then one court or Synedrion; and he could not give that to Mat. 18.20. 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 wilbe good for them to yeild unto this persvvasion. For the Elders in Israel, to vvhom they In their Treat. on Mat. 18. referr us, by Psal. 82. Josh. [...]0.4.5.6. Num. 35, 12.24.25. [Page 19] 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 Heb. 8.8. nevv Testament, to have nevv rules and ordinances: and that the kingdome being changed aswel as the Preisthood, there must needs be Heb. 7.12. a change of the law therof also: or els, let them leave it to the Magistrate, vnto vvhom it belongeth.
Next this, they give us Advert. pag. 33. a distinction between the sentence of excō 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. Chrō. 26.16.20. Levit. 13. &c. and then it was for the people to perform the execution accordingly: so the Elders now may by office give out the sentence of excō munication according to the law of God, & the people should accordingly put it in execution, by avoiding the excōmunicate persons til they repent. I answer; this comparison is faulty many wayes. First, it speaketh onely of a rightful power, wheras the thing they should answer to, is both rightful and able power, as themselves once distinguished: or let them say, whether the Church that Christ sendeth to for redress of syn, hath not able power to excōmunicate. 2. Secondly it matcheth the power of the Ministers in spiritual things, with the power of the Magistrates in civil things: which what is it, but to make the one Lords spiritual, as the other are Lords temporal; according to the Popish hierarchie? 3. Thirdly it misseth in the proportion of the Preists judging leprosie; for Gods law in Lev. 13.2. is, that the suspected person should be brought to Aarō the Preist or to one of his sons the Preists; and the verse 3.6. &c.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 Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 8.allege this very example, and apply it to one Preist: make a fitter proportiō, then they that deny this power unto one, and yet apply it unto many? 4. Fourthly, thus farr I grant this proportion, that as every Preist then might according to the law, declare what was leprosie: so every Minister now, may and ought by the law to declare what is syn and heresie; and this though it be [Page 20] 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 Num. 5.2. children of Israel, put every leper out of the host: so now, not the minister onely, but the childrē of Christ, the church, are to 1. Cor. 5.12.13. put the wicked out frō among them, as the Apostle sheweth. 5. Fiftly, if the Elders the Magistrates, might (as these men say) give sentence of death against a man, though without and against the peoples consent; & then it was for the people to perform the execution: then that people, I say, were in great subjection and servitude to their Elders, that must execute that man, to whose death they cō 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 Mich. 3.11. judged for rewards, the Princes Zeph. 3.3 4. Isa. 1.23. as Lions, the Iudges as Wolves devoured them, the Preists polluted the sanctuarie, and wrested the law. And then the people of the land, Levit. 20.2.4. whose duty also it was to look to open wickednes, were neyther to folow Exod. 23.2.7. 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 1 King. 21.12·13. a solemn fast and assemblie of the people with the governours: how in Ieremies case, he was accused Ier. 26.11.12.16. to the Princes and people, made his defense to princes and people, and was acquitted by princes and people. When 1. Sam. 14.39.44.45. 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 [Page 21] 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 Luk. 23.24. gave sentence of death upon Christ; the Ioh. 19.23.34. souldjers that kylled him with nayles and spear, they executed the sentence of death, as we commonly speak and understand. Then vers. 38.— 43. 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 Num. 19.11.should be polluted: did they here by execute him? No more doo they properly execute the sentence of excommunication, which avoyd the company of one excommunicated. 7. But because al the weight of their wrested proportion frō Israel, is couched herein: let us look upon it a litle more. In their Treatise on Mat. 18. there pag. 19. 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, ibid. p. 20. 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 ibid. p. 26 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 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 [Page 22] observ: 1. that the church elders may by their sole authoritie give judiciarie sentence, that a man shalbe excommunicated: answerable to the Magistrates in Israel, that gave sentence a man should be put to death. 2. That the Elders may also by authoritie in particular deliver a man to Satan by the power of Christ; which is proportionably answerable to the taking away by death: which in Israel, themselves grant, was to be doon by the hands of the people. Thus doo the Elders now chalenge by proportion in the Church, that which belonged both to Magistrates and people in the cōmon wealth. But because they fear the Act. 5.26. people, they shape them this deceitful proportion, that their avoyding the excommunicate person, is the executing (or putting in execution, as they ambiguously speak) of the sentence: answerable to the peoples stoning of a malefactor in Israel; how fitly, let al that have understanding judge. For whether the people avoid him or not, the man is judged and delivered to Satan, and so cut off from the church: as on the contrary, when one is baptised by the minister, whether the people keep company with him or not, he is made a member of the church: and as a man beheaded in Israel, was surely dead, whether the people refreyned from touching him or no. 2. Agayn they give no more to the people of that Church wherof he is a member, then to the people of all other churches, that are bound to avoid the excōmunicated person, as wel as they. 3. Yea they give hereby their people no more power, then the Pope dooth to his marked servants; for he also wil have the people avoyd such as he dooth excōmunicate: and if this be the boasted right and libertie of the people, they had as much in the greatest bondage of poperie, as now when they are caried thus blindfold by propertions. But they tel the people, Advert. pag. 34. that if any can except against the Elders proceedings they shalbe 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 Deut. 17.8 9. 2. Chrō. 19.8.10.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 [Page 23] to be present at the hearing and deciding of the controversie: wil it not be a just blame upon them, if they except against a matter, which they have not heard discussed? Thirdly, when the party accused shal except against the Elders proceedings, (as commonly he wil doo, for if he acknowledged himself to have synned, he should not need to be excōmunicated:) may the people now require to hear the case debated between the Elders and him? nay, they plead in their Treatise on Math. 18. saying, pag. 16. But where hath the Lord appointed a rule of further proceeding, beyond that of the Elders & governours, for hearing the brethrens causes, and judging between a man and his brother? &c. And agayn, the Elders also are the Churches officers, &c. so as when they have heard, examined, admonished, and iudged according to the word of God, it is to be estemed as doon by the Lord and the Church &c. Thus let the mā except what he wil, the judgmt 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 Zeph. 3.3. 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 Isa. 2 [...].2 [...].take him in a snare that reproveth in the gate: perhaps he shal hear it sayd, by what authoritie doo you speak? &, are you one of the Church spoken of in the 1 [...]. of Matthew? for the Elders have power to deal with him also that shal except, and can easily bring him within the compass of a contentious person, or an oppugner of goverment, and cast him likeweise out of the Church; that a man sometime were as good take a Lion by the paw, as except against the Elders proceedings.
Next folow their many questions; and other matters imputed unto us: wherein we observ how when arguments fayl them for their own cause, they seek to darken the truth, by casting clowds before the readers eyes. 1. First they ask, whither in Jsrael the Lord abridged the people of their right and libertie &c. I answer, No: but these men that by wrested proportions, give the ministers of the church, the power that Magistrates, Preists and people had in Israel; doe abridge the people of their right, as before is manifested.
And for the further clearing of it, seing ther were diverse governours in Israel, as the Num. 18. Preists and Levites in the Temple; the [Page 24] Luk. 4.20ministers in the synagogues; the Deut. 16 1 [...]. Elders or Magistrates at the gates of the cities, and these also divers and of unequal power, as before pag. 16. 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 pag. 10. I have shewed, but a right and power to Mat. 28.20. 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 govermt 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 Rō. 13.1. now, as they were then: for it is an 1. pet. 2.13. 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 Ier. 33.21.22. a figure also of the kingdom and preisthood that Rev. 1.6. 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 Heb. 13.17. 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 cōmunication 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 [Page 25] 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 Heb. 8.8.9. &c. 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 Gal. 4.2, 3.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 Levit. 18.5. if they did his statutes, they should live by them, which Paul Gal. 3.12. sheweth to be a speech of the law, not of the gospel. Now that condition, Israel Heb. 8 9. kept not, neyther Rom 8.3 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 Gal. 3.23 24. scholemaster, & had an external preisthood, which could give them no Heb. 7.11.19. 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. Maimon. in Treat. of the discipline of the law; ch. 3. 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 cōmanded vs a law, the inheritance of the congregation of Ja [...]kob. In that they al had the law to use so freely, & were so restreyned frō 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 Ioh. 2.27. 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 [Page 26] power onely. I answer, the power it self is 1. Cor. 5.4 5. 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 1. Cor. 4.1. Ministers; in a general sense the whole Church are Isa. 61.6. 1. Pet. 4.10 11. 1. Cor. 14, 31. Act. 13.2. 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 Ioh. 3.29. 1. Cor. 3.22 23. 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 so caled, Iam. 2.2. 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 Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 5. 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 ibid. c. 6. vvould have. So vvheras our opposites [Page 27] 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 Exo. 19.6. 1. Pet. 2.9. kingdom of Preists, that is of ministers: who are to be Heb. 13.17. guided and governed by their Officers, (caled also Colos. 4.17. 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, Isa. 61.5.6 strangers shal stand and feed your sheep, and the sonns of strangers shalbe your plowmen and dressers of your vines; but ye shalbe named the Preists of the Lord, & men shal say unto you, The Ministers of our God. Where the Officers of the Church are cō pared to pastours & husbandmen, (as the new testament also Eph. 4.11. 1. Cor. 3.9. cō firmeth,) vvhich should be of the converted Gentiles: and the Church it self, is the Lords 1. Pet. 2.9. Rev. 20.6. 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 cōmon wealth of Jsrael, &c. I answer, this was in their fourth observation before, and p. 14.15.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 cōmon-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 Gen. 14.18. Melchisedek: afterward these functions were divided, & Kings might 2 Chron. 26.18. not doo the Preists work. Also the civil government in Israel was Deut. 17.14. 1. Sam. 8. changeable, somtime without a King, sometime with one: yea sometime by hethen Kings, as Nebuchadnezar, Cyrus, &c, to whom the Israelites were bound Ier. 27.6.8.12. to be subject, but not so in their sacraments: that ther is no just consequence to be drawn frō the one of these to the other. We rather may ask of our opposites, whether they as the Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. Papists would not draw us frō the testament of Christ, (vvho was Heb. 3.2. faithful as Moses in al his house,) to the Ievvish politie novv abolished. And let them tell us vvhether ther [Page 28] may be novv Archbishops, over other Bishops and Ministers, as in Israel there were Archpreists Nū. 3.6.32 Nehem. 12 7.12. over other Preists and Levites; or a superior court 2. Chron. 10.8.10. 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 1. Chro. 27.5.1. Kin. 2.34.35. 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 Pag. 242.243. Discovery, the p. 75. — 81. Re [...]itation of M. Gifford, the p. 60.—64 Apologie, p. 61.74. the Treatise of the Ministerie against M. Hildersh the p. 55.56▪ 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 Ruth. 4.9.11. Ps. 149.6.—9. Ier. 26.11.12.16. Mat. 18.18.—20. & 28.20. Act. 15.22.23.30. & 11.2. &c. & 21.18.— 22.1. Cor. 5 4— 13. Rev. 2.7.11 29. 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 Math. 20.25.26. 1. Pet. 5.3. the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage. The Apostle applieth many things from Aarons preisthood Heb. 5.4. & 9.6.7. & 13.11.12. to Christ: yet he maketh Christs preisthood not to be after Aarons order Heb. 7.1 [...].12. [...]5. 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 [Page 29] 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, vers. 35. let al the congregation stone him; and vers. 36. al the Congregation brought him without the host and stoned him. Now by M. Iohnsons own grant, they whom the Iudges condemned, did dye Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 19. 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 [Page 30] 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, Exod. 23.7 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 Isa. 1.23. 1. Sam. 8.3. Zeph. 3.3.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 cōmanded, Exod. 19, 3, 5. tel the children of Jsrael, if ye wil hear my voice and keep my covenant, ye shalbe my chief treasure &c. afterwards it is sayd, Moses caled Exod. 19.7. 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 [Page 31] 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 Luk. 22.10 11.12. &c. 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 1. Cor. 11 20. &c. 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 Ruth. 4.2. ten of the Elders of Bethlehē to hear his cause. The Elders also did meet by themselves as ther was occasion: and so are Act. 21.18 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, Levit. 14.14. 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 Heb. 1.4.5 of his name, the Son of God: the Iewes might allege, that the Angels are also caled Iob. 1.6. & 2.1. Sonns of God, yea holy Deut. 14.1. men have the like title: but were this a sufficient answer? Wel, I wil not st [...]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 [Page 32] as the prophets tel us of Isa. 65 17 & 66.22. 2. Cor. 5.17. new heavens under the Gospel, so wil I distinguish and cal the Iewish church the old heaven, (as that which is Heb. 12.26.27. 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, Mat. 18, 2. 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 vers. 3, 4. converted and humble sovvles to enter into: that many scandals and offenses should arise herein, both from v. 7. the vvorld, and from mens corruption v. 8. in them selves, and from v. 15. &c. 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, shalbe ratified v. 18. in heaven: the ground vvherof is his v. 20. name vvherin they should be gathered togither, and his presence in the mids of them. And this phrase of Christs name, leadeth us also evidētly unto the church under the gospel: for it meaneth the clear manifestation of Christ with the power and profession of him, as Act. 2, 38. & 3, 16 & 4, 12, 17. 2 Tim. 2, 19. In respect wherof, Christ sayd to his disciples, hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name, Joh. 16, 24. These rules therfore, doo most properly serve for the Church since Christs comming: & therfore he sendeth not his disciples to the Iewes synedriōs, much less to the hethen magistrates, for redress of the synns that should arise in his kingdom. But our opposites doo except, what is here taught that the Jewes should not observ as wel as we? should not they be humble, harmless, &c. I answer, that which the gospel teacheth touching faith, repentance, humility &c, the Iewes were also bound unto; though these and the like things are otherwise opened and urged now under the gospel, Rom. 16.25.26. but ther was to be an other form and order of the Christian church, than of the Iewish: and in that respect, Moses politie must give place. Ye▪ they proceed and inferr, that the offender if he repent not should be [Page 33] 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 p. 17.18.before,) and I affirm it to be the Christian Church or Congregation of faithful people, the spowse and bride of Christ, with whom his 1. Cor. 5.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 Dan. 9, 26. Isa. 65, 17. Heb. 8. & 9 & 10. chap.by Christ; the common wealth of Israel dissolved, and given up to the Romanes, whose Caesar Ioh. 19.15 they preferred before Christ. The Temple Mat. 24.2 ruinated, the ministerie Eph. 4.11 1. Cor. 12. 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 1. Cor. 11.20.—33. came togither to the word and sacraments, came also togither 1. Cor. 5.4.—13.to judge and cast out obstinate synners, and were vers. 1.2. all blamed for the neglect of this duty, as for any other. And for deciding controversies, the Apostles, Elders, and brethren did Act. 15.23 25. 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, Tertull. in Apologet. 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 Cypr. l. 3. epist. 14. sheweth how with him mens causes were handled not onely before the Elders but apud plebē universā. the whole multitude: without whose consent also, ibid. epist 10. 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 [Page 34] 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 Act. 6.4. by prayer and the ministration of the word, that al may receiv instruction by the word there ministred, and as is written Deut. 13.11. & 17.13. 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 1. Cor. 14.34. 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 Iustisic. p. 204.205.206. 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 Adver [...]. p. 46. 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; D. Cousins, answ. to the abstract. p. 99▪ 100. 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 [Page 35] 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 excō munication. Fourthly, if some would thus cavil against Moses lavv, which requireth Deut. 13 9 10. 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, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 19. 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 Advertis. pag. 34. that they shal put the sentence in execution, by avoiding the excōmunicated persons. Now, I think, they wil have women yea and children also, to avoyd excōmunicated 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 pag. 8.9. 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 cōmon Aristot. in reprehens. Sophist. 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 [Page 36] to stone their parents, wives their husbands, and servants their maysters, by avoiding their cōmunion: yet wil they not have thē to be of that church which is to hear, examine & judge of the causes why their parents, &c. should be stoned and excōmunicated; not bound to be present at the trial of their case? Did ever any cō 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 vers. 4▪ 5.6. diversities of gifts, Ministeries, and operations in the church, as they are given to to vers. 7. every man to profit with all; and nameth in particular the vers. 8 &c.gifts, operations and ministeries, and among the rest the vers. 28. 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 1. Cor. 5.7 12. of the church; they are for the help and service ofIam. 3.2. all; they help to Gal. 6.1. Ephe. 4.12. —16. 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▪ [...]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 judgmēt of syn should be brought to infants newly baptised; because we say, not the Elders onely but [Page 37] the church is to judge, as Cor. 5.12 Paul teacheth? And would th'Apostle also inferr (think they) that infants should rebuke and judge unbeleevers, because he sayth, 1. Cor. 14.23.24. 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, Ios. 7.25. 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 1. Cor. 12.7. 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 verse 13. all made to drink into one spirit: therfore infants also were partakers of the Lords supper. vers. 26. 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 Act. 25.22.—25. scripture, and dayly experience tells us the contrary: yea some other mēbers may have fitter gifts then the Elders. And they thēselves that now are officers, had they not gifts fit to examine judge decide &c. before they were chosē 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 [Page 38] 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 Isa. 8.20. commanded; vvhich vvhen it is shevved by vvhom soever, al ought to yeild unto. We knovv neyther the multitude, Exod. 23.2 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 Gal. 1.8. an Angel from heaven,) may cary us from the vvritten vvord, by vvhich the Godly people tried even the Apostles doctrine, Act. 17.11. 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 nūber, even ten of the tribes fel to false worship, and they caried away with them, not onely the tribute of 2 King. 3.4. Isa. 16.1. 2. Sam. 8.2. 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 Ier. 3.8. Ilos. 4.15. 1. King. 12.19. & 15.9.16.17. &c. 2 Chron. 10 16, 17. &c. 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 Ps. 7▪3.1. & 125.5. Gal. 6.16. Rō. 9.4.6. counteth Israel. Yet did not the faithful respect this greater number, but left 2. Chron. 11.16. 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 [Page 39] 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 In their Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25. 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 [...]avoureth the things of God aright, wil abhorr such an unruly prelacie. For if these Elders prove such as Paul foretold of, Act. 20.2 [...] 30. greevous wolves not sparing the flock, but speaking perverse things to draw disciples after thē; & 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 opiniō 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, p. 28.40. 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, [Page 40] preists and learned Rabbines in al ages: even Christ himself found no greater enemies then the Mat-26.3 4. & 27.1. &c. 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 kn [...]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 Mat. 20.25 26. hath forbidden. For (besides that one man may judge according to law,) both the princes of 2. Chron. 19.5.6. Israel, and the princes of Plato de repub. l. 4. & 5. 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 Aristot. 3. Pol. c. 11. 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, p. 41. 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 cōcern 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 [Page 41] David Psal. 119.99.100. by Gods precepts: & what if the Elders be blind guides as Mat. 15.14 Christ caleth some, & without understanding, Isa. 56.11as the prophet cōplayneth? 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 1. Cor. 12 by that similitude of a body, that the chiefest members have need of the inferiour, and the head verse 21. 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, verse 25.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 1. Sā. 9.9. Seers, and so in sted of eyes in the head: but when they Lā. 2.14. 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 2. Sam. 17. and take it yll, if at any time their counsel be not folowed. A man may see that in the Church, which Solomō saw in the beseiged citie, Eccles. 9.13 14. &c. a poor wise man, that delivered the citie by his wisdom: though both he and his wisdom were despised. A 2. Sam. 20 16. &c. woman in Abel when it was in danger to be spoyled, verse 22.perswaded al the people with her wisdom to cut off Shebaes head; and so preserved [Page 42] 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 frō church affayrs. The Church (sayth De sacrament▪ in gen. l. 1. c. 25. 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 pag. 41. 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 1. Cor. 11.18.33. they came togither for the Lords supper, writeth also to them how 1. Cor. 5.4 5. 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 Exod. 23.7. thow shalt not slay the innocent, to look that he were duly convicted of the crime: and now by this law, 1. Tim. 5.22. 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 3. Ioh. 9.1 [...]. Diotrephes cause to cast out faithful brethren. He that stands out to excommunication, wil cōmonly plead his cause to be just; and complayn that the Elders have perverted judgmēt: with what comfort of hart can the people now excōmunicate 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 [Page 43] 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 excōmunicate alone, as wel as try the case alone: seing they have maintenance for both, and let the people be bound to come to neyther: no nor to the Pastours ministring of the word and sacraments (if this reason be good,) because he is more worthy maintenāce than the ruling Elders, as th'Apostle sheweth. But then, they say,1. Tim. 5.17.18. men must leav their trades, women their families, children their scholes, servants their work, and come to hear and judge cases that fall out between brother & brother. I answer, 1. First they restreyn things too much, when they say between brother & brother: for what if it be a publick case of heresie or idolatrie, as that mentioned Deut. 13, 12, 13, 14. &c. wil they say women children and servants were then, or are now bound to leav their callings, & come togither to trie out the matter? 2. Secondly many cōtroversies between neighbours, are for civil things of this life: such are Luk. 12.14 not church matters, nor there to be heard, but by Rom. 13. Magistrates, or 1. Cor. 6.4.5. arbiters chosen. 3. Thirdly for doubtful cases ecclesiastical, people are to inquire the law Mal. 2.7. at the Preists mouth, and to ask counsel of their Elders severally or joyntly, who are to have their Act. 21.18. 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 Exo. 20.10 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, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 17. 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; R. Ios. Karo, in Choshen [...]amishpat, tract. de Iudi [...]. ch. 5. Jt is not lawful (they say) to judge on the Sabbath, or on a festival day: yea further, that Maimony Tract. Sanhedrin, ch. [...]1. matters of life and death may not be judged on the evening of the Sabbath, or on the [Page 44] 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 1. Cor. 6 4. Paul caleth them,) to be of our own works, which by the law, Exod. 20. [...]. 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 Ioh. 7.23. circumcision, Num. 28.9. with Levit. 1. kylling, slaying, cutting and burning of sacrifices, which was very laborious work, and even a Mat. 12.5 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 Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26. compare the casting out by excōmunication, with the contrary receiving in by baptisme. Al churches baptise on the Sabbath, and also excommunicate on the Sabbath: why should not the cause be heard, as wel as the judgment executed on that day? We find, ecclesiastical controversies were disputed on the Sabbath dayes in Israel, as the Apostles practise sheweth, Act. 13.44.45.46. & 17.2.3. & 18.4. It was lawful on the Sabbath to Luk. 13.15.16. heal the body: and is it unlawful to heal Psal. 41.4 the sowl? It was lawful to save a Mat. 12.11.12. sheep from dying in a ditch: and is it not lawful to Iam. 5.20 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 1. Cor. 7.2 [...]. 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,Treat. of the Minist. of Engl. p. 62. Apol. p. 63. & 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, Advertis. p 45. Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 23. that God hath thus layd upon the people without officers to excōmunicate? where is the precept for it? which be the examples of it? or what are the grounds requiring & bearing it out?
I answer, 1. First as their manner is, they would put others to prove, that which by others and themselves Discov. p. 46.242, 243 Treat. of the Minist. p. 62.63.64 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. Secondly in that place of their Treatise on Mat. 18. they quote Mat. 2 [...].20. as alleged for a ground: yet they give not any answer to that scripture, but stil call upon us to answer their questions, & write more. Wheras Christ there encōmendeth to his disciples of all nations to the worlds end the observing of all things whatsoever he cōmanded th'Apostles. And excommunication was one of those [Page 46] 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 Ioh. 15.1.2.3.4. union with Christ? And if men cannot be united with his members and body, because ther wanteth Elders, how should they be united with him the head? 4. They have it proved a point of false doctrine by Mr Iohnson himsef, to teach that the Church of Christ hath not alwayes power to receive in and to cast out by the keyes of the kingdom. Answer to M. Iakob, pag. 159.160.
2. They secondly allege sundry examples & grounds that it hath been doon by the Lord himself and by his officers, &c. This we never doubted of, but a Church having officers may excōmunicate. Though yet the proof for the Elders wilbe excepted against by the Prelates and such like. For, th'examples of Abraham, of Paul, of Titus, of Timothee, and of the Preist judging a leper, make rather in show for one Bishop, then for a Church of Elders: and so are alleged by Papists, for the Prelacie. The other scriptures doo none of them shew the Elders power to excōmunicate, but to watch, take heed, reprove, admonish &c, al which the Prelates grant to their inferiour Preists: whom yet they wil not suffer to excommunicate, with out the Bishop or his Official, as these wil not the Church, without an Eldership. The examples of excommunicating by the Rulers of Israel, I wil turn against them thus: If the Magistrates and people of Israel might not onely punish civilly with death, but also execute a spiritual censure of excommunication upon the consciences [Page 47] 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 Io [...]. 18.36not 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, In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 24. 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 1. Tim. 6.20. 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, Treat. of the minist. against M. Hilders. p. 63.64. 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 1. Cor. 12 27. Rō. 12.5. Heb. 12 22.28. Mat. 5.14. & 18 17.20. 1. Co 1.2. & 5.4. Phil. 1.1.5. Act. 2.41.42.47. & 17 4. 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; 1. Pet. 2.6. Christ, is the chief corner stone:Mat. 18.19.20. 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 verse 7. Ioh. 6.35. beleef, and are joyned unto him and one to another [Page 48] by mutual Ier. 50.5. & 32.40. & 31 33.34. Act. 2.47. & 5.13. covenant. The ministers of Christ are as 1. Cor. 3.9, 10. &c. 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 Psal. 118.22, 23. Mat. 21.42. builders doo refuse, yet the Lord without them putteth Christ for head of the corner, and causeth the faithful to 1. Pet. 2.4.7. come unto him, and maketh them his verse [...].spiritual howse to dwel in them, whose howse they continew to be, not by having officers alway among them, but by Heb. 3.6. holding fast their confidence and rejoycing of hope unto the end. Wherfore these men that can find no howse of God without Elders, must prove that men can not come unto, no [...] continew in Christ, unless it be by ecclesiastical officers, (which they shal never be able to manifest:) or al may see, how they are beguiled with errour, that they can not find things so apparant, and heretofore acknowledged by themselves. Ther opinion is injurious not onely to Christians, but to Christ himself; whiles they wil not grant him being the corner stone, the head, the king; and the faithful, the living stones his mē bers and subjects, to make a howse, body or kingdom; if the Elders want or refuse: though he as is written, Rev. 2.1. walketh among his Churches and Mat. 28.20 is with them al dayes to the worlds end.
5. Fiftly they say, our controversie was about a Church established with officers: & things concerning people without officers, are left to further consideration. I answer, true it is, they sought alwayes to hide their errors, and to put off things which pressed them, to further consideration, and the Elders having gott the Churches power into their hands, they lysted not to scan the peoples right. But we were necessarily drawn to controvert this point two wayes: first because their errour did eat out the very constitution of the Church wherof they vvere, as shal after be manifested. Secondly because it vvas by themselves acknovvledged that vvhatsoever povver the people hav before; is not to be takē away by their officers; this therfore vvas an argument that manifested the evil vvhich lurketh in their nevv doctrine. And vvho can soundly discuss any question, if they look not to the foundation; as Christ sayd to the Pharisees, Mat. 19.8. 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 [Page 49] 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 Eph. 4.4.5. 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & 12, 13. one baptisme, that by one spirit baptiseth al into one body; then are they returned into the cōmmunion and body of Antichrists synagogue, (if the church of Rome be it,) & are bound to communicate even with Friers and Iesuites in any thing lawful as God giveth occasion, and that is, I suppose, to hear them when they preach nothing but the truth, or to pray with them, when they in spirit pray to God in Christ &c. I would be loth to wrong them, their own Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26. words lead me to this, if I gather amyss let them pardon me, & shew their meaning plainly: for, Ioh. 3, 21. he that dooth truth, cōmeth to the light. 3. Thirdly, without baptisme there may be a Church entred into covenant with God & one with an other: as all Israel Deut. 29.10,— [...]3. passed into the covenant renued by Moses; when Ios. 5.4.5 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 [Page 50] 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 excō 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 electiō? where is the precept for it? which be the examples of it? &c. They tel us it is playn; but not one scripture is brought to shew it: yet is it needful, seing they know the Papists and other Prelates deny such elections without officers. The Prelates wil shew them sundry examples, wher it was doon by the counsel, direction and government of officers, as Act. 1.15.21, 22. & 6.2, 3. & 14, 23, 1. Tim. 3, 1.— 14.15. Tit. 1.5. but not one place where a people without officers attempted such a work. Wherefore wee wish our opposites not to deal so slenderly, as to tel men it is playn and undeniable, & so to leav it: for we make no doubt, but the sound proof of this point, wil disproov their former errour. 2. Secondly, we have upon their bare word, that to give voices in election of officers is no part of government: we pray them in their next to shew, whether then to give voices for deposition of unworthy officers, be a part of government; as also how they prove that to give voices for the reciving in, and putting out of members in the Church, is a part of government, more than the other. 3. Thirdly the reader may observ their covert cariage of this point, whiles they speak but of giving voices in election: but what say they about giving power of administration to the ministers: who must doo that? or how had these men that, but by the people? And if the people have power in the name of Christ, to say to the elected Pastor, Take thou authority to preach the word &c. or in any other terms to give him pastoral office which had none before; I hope they wil not deny but if that Pastor afterward proov a Act. 20.29 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: [Page 51] others from private estate, were constituted Elders by the people. Is this Ministerie now from heaven, or from men?
4. Lastly they say, seing their doctrine overthroweth not the constitution of the Church of Jsrael, nor of the primitive Churches, it cannot therfore overthrow the constitution of their church, or of any that is accordingly built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets &c. I answer, this in deed is the surest argument of al: save that it is a fayr begging of the quaestion. For the thing they should prove, is, that their constitution is according to Israel, or Apostolik. For, if Israel or the primitive Churches before they had officers, did or might receiv in and cast out members, and if the people might set up, and depose officers by power from God: then are these mens errors overthrown. If not, but that the thing is unlawful for any then or now so to doo, then is the constitution of their Church overthrown, as that wch did grow up to such estate without power Ioh. 3.27. Heb. 5.4. from heaven, and they are to let it fal, and be Mat. 15.13. 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,Confess. art. 23. & 3 [...] Apolog. p. 46, 47. that every Christian congregation hath power and cōmandement 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 frō the Scriptures.
[Page 52] Advertis. p. 47.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 excō municate him, by their doctrine. 2. Secondly they say, if al the officers jointly transgress and so persist: then the church which did chuse thē, 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 Deut. 16.18. 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, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25. 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 h [...]ve deposed al the Bishops of England long agoe. But whether this be not to aequivocate with the word depose, let wise men j [...]dge: for a litle after they ask Advertis. p. [...]8. whether it can be shewed by any scripture, that any did ordeyn or depose officers, but Governours. Now wheras [Page 53] our [...] & Apologie is confirmed by many scriptures & reasons deduced from them, they answer them not, as is meet they should, seing they wil abrogate their former profession, and bring in a new: neither doo they (as they then Apol. p. 48. 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 cō 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 Cō fession and Apologie sheweth. In Israel the Num. 8.9.10.whole Congregation was assembled at the ordination of their ministers, and the childrē 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 shalbe 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 1. Ioh. 2.18.19. 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 oftē 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 [Page 54] which these say, is here true, but not the whole truth. [...] Elders, are meant as principals, but not they to be al the congregation: which I thus manifest. The Levites now to be ordeyned Ministers, were taken in stead of al the firstborn of Israel, and not in stead of the firstborn 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, Num. 8.7.9. thou shalt sprinkle water, thou shalt bring them before the Lord &c. and then vers. 10. the children of Jsrael imposed [...]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 [Page 55] when Num. 15.24.25. a [...] 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 secōd questiō 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 cōmon 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 Act. 14. Tit. 1. 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 & mē bers of the church:) but Magistrates have their office next under Rō. 13.1. God, to be Iob. 12.24. heads of the Common weales (whether they be mēbers of the church Act. 25.11 or not,) as Christ hath his office under God to be Eph. 1.22 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 [Page 56] his Ioh. 18.36 kingdom not to be of this world, neyther medled [...] with the Mat. 26.52 outward sword, nor Luk. 12.14. civil controversies: neyther on the other side, might the Kings of Israel medle with the Preists work, 2 Chrō. 26.16, 18. to burn incense, or the like. 3. Because the works of the civil Magistrates office in Israel, might be performed by hethēs when they ruled over that nation: as appointing of officers, judging of controversies, punishment of malefactors &c. So Nebuchadnezar the Babylonian lawfully Ier. 27.6..8.12. (as concerning God,) reigned over the Iewes, and did Ier. 40.5. set over them a governour, and put some of them to death Ier. 29.22 23. for adulterie & other evils. And the Iewes were bound to obey him and his substitutes, and to Ier. 29.7. pray for his cōmon 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 multitude of them could not perform it: which order al churches now are 1. Cor. 14.40. bound to keep for ever. And this which I have sayd, the words of the text in their natural sense doo confirm, Num. 8.10. the sonns of Jsrael shal put their hands upon the Levites: shewing that they did it not by title of Magistracie, but as Israelites. So also in the other case, when the Elders imposed hands on the syn offring, Levit. 4, 14, 15. it was not a work peculiar to the ecclesiastical Elders: for afterward Chron. 29, 23. King Hezekiah with the Congregation layd their hands upon the sacrifices. Which thing also he did not by peculiar right of his kingly office, but as he was principal of the Church of Israel; for when they had no King, the Church might doo it, by the next cheif mēbers; & an unbeleeving King reigning over them might not doo it. Also if any people returning from captivity, had wanted Magistrates; they were not deprived therby of offring sacrifice for their publik syn. For if every private man might impose hands on his own sacrifice, as Levit. 1.3.4. how can we think that the whole company synning, the cheif fathers might not have imposed hands, according to that rule, Lev. 4.15. Yea the word Elders [Page 57] dooth not alwayes (though often) mean Magistrates or ministers by office, but Exod. 10.9. & 17.5. Lev. 19.32. Ezr. 3, 12. Ioel. 2.16.28. Prov. 20 29. 1. King. 12.6.8.sometime ancient in yeres.
The other things which they allege, about the varietie of phrase, as they doo not disprove the thing forespoken: so make they nothing for them. They say such as are caled Elders, Lev. 9.1. are caled children of Jsrael, Lev. 9, 3. this is true: for who ever doubted but the Elders were sonns of Jsrael as wel as the other people. But if they bring it to prove the Elders or Officers onely to be there intended, I deny it: the whole chapter after manifesteth the publick church to be meant. For when Aaron had offred his own vers. 8. syn-offring, and verse 12.burnt-offring; then offred he the verse 15, 16.18. peoples syn-offring, and their burnt-offring, and their peace offrings: and after lifted up his hands to the people and vers. 22. &c. blessed them. This was one of the most publik assemblies, and who would ever dream that the Elders onely were here expiated by sacrifice, and blessed of the Preist? they might even as wel say, the Elders onely did keep and eat the passover; cō paring Exod. 12.3. with Exod. 12.21. where one verse sayth al the congregation, and an other, al the Elders.
The next exception of the Septuagints translating the sonns of Jsrael in Greek the Eldership: is not of weight, though the translators should have minded as doo their Commenters. But they purposed not hereby to exclude the people, any more then in 1. Sam 8.4. they would exclude the Elders: where when the original text sayth, the Elders of Jsrael came to Samuel, they translate it in Greek, the men of Jsrael. So the Elders of Jabesh, 1. Sam. 11, 3. the Greek caleth the men of Jabesh. Of like weight are their observations about the word Church or Congregation, which being but once Pro. 26, 26 turned in Greek the synedrion, they In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 7. skore it up, as making for their Eldership: but though it be once, twise and thrise turned 2 Chr. 30.24. & 31.18 Exod. 12, 6. Ier. 31, 8. Ezek. 17.17 & 23.46, laos, plethos, ochlos, that is, the people, and multitude; they can let them places pass, and say never a word. Moreover touching this place in hand, Num. 8, 10. the Greek version as wel as the Hebrue it self sayth, the children of Jsrael, shal impose their hands vpon the Levites: so that their exception here standeth them in no sted.
Finally they observ the clauses in the article, according to the rules in Gods word, and by due order &c. which as they bind them to shew by scriptures, that the people not being in office may choose their officers, as is proved there & in Apol. p. 46.47. so they bind us to shew like rules practise or warrant of [Page 58] ordination, deposition and excommunication. I answer; first if a man would except as they doo, he might ask them how they prove that people without officers may by due order choose any into office: for in the scriptures which they stand upon, al things were doon by the counsel, ordering and goverment of the officers, even the election it self, Act. 6.2.3. & 1.15.—22. & 14.23. &c. Secondly their new devise of having their ordination successively frō Rome, is neyther according to the rules in Gods word, nor by due order, nor by any example in Israel; no though Rome were as true a church as they now plead her to be. For that the ministers of one particular church should ordeyn officers for an other church, is more unorderly then when every church ordeyneth them in it self: the Apostles and Evangelists had their offices in al churches, so have not Pastors. Magistrates are limited within their own precincts: and the Maior or Bailive of one corporation, hath no jurisdiction in another. So should al ministers be bounded within their own charges, and not chalenge catholik authoritie in al churches, as dooth the 2. Thes. 2 8. lawless usurping man of syn, Antichrist. Thirdly, the scriptures and reasons in our Articles and Apologie, serv also for the ordination and deposition of ministers; though it please these men to pass them over in silēce, because they are too heavy for them to lift. In our Apologie pag. 43. there are 6. arguments, and in pag. 47. six other arguments confirmed by scriptures, as the reader may see: til our opposites answer thē, we think it needless to set down more.
Fourthly, we hold it necessary that al church actions be orderly caried, eyther by the officers if ther be any, or by the Magistrates as in Israel, or by the Fathers of families, or the most excellent in gifts requested therunto by the congregation: this we firmly mainteyn, against al popular confusion and disorder whatsoever. And M. Iohnson himself hath expressly defended this truth heretofore against M. Iaakob, pag. 210. that where people first come to the order of Christ, imposition of hands is to be doon by the fittest among them, being therunto appointed by the rest of the church, alleging Num. 8.10. though now he useth for defense of his contrary error, the Iesuites answers. For even so dooth Bellarmine turn away the reasons of the protestantes, saying, De Rom. Pont. l. 1. [...].6. the people did never ordeyn nor create ministers, nor give them any power, but onely named and designed them. Act. 1. & 6.
The 4. point of difference: in the Letter.
4. WE had learned that none may execute a ministery but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand Ministers,Cōfes. art. 21. unto such offices and in such manner as God hath prescribed in his word. But now these wil execute a ministerie, which have not rightly been caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers, according to their own account and doctrine: which hold (as before) that a people without officers have no warrant from God, to make or depose Ministers.
With this they joyn, out of the printed copy.
3. The 29. article (of our Confession, as also our Apologie pag. 51.52.) professeth that the hierarchie of Archbishops, Lord bishops, Preists &c. are a strange and Antichristian Ministerie and officers, not instituted in Christs Testament, nor placed in or over his church. These have placed over them, one that was made Preist by a Lord bishops ordination, so as because of it, they did not ordeyn or impose hands on him, when at the same time they ordeyned and imposed hands on others, whom togither with him they set over the Church.
5. The 32. article (wherto our Apologie agreeth pag. 52.53.54.) testifieth that al such as have received any of those false offices (of Lord bishops Preists &c.) are to give over and leave them: and so hath it been practised here before by al such Preists as came to our faith and Church. Now one is Minister over thē, ordeyned Preist by the Prelates, as is before sayd.
The Confirmation of these points in our Apologie (besides the scriptures quoted in our Confession,) is of the one by 8. of the other by 12. reasons deduced from many scriptures.
Hereunto they make these answers. First, that this point is of like nature with the 2. & 3. here before, where therfore see the answers. And there also let the reader see our replies. But they would blind their reader with shew of answer, where none is. For the first point was of every Churches power to cast out obstinate synners: the secōd of their power to elect and ordeyn officers. Now what are these to justify any unlawful ministerie, eyther set up by a people without the power of Christ, or received by the tradition of Antichrist? It had been their part, seing they deny their former grounds, to have shewed us some better by the scripture: which how they have doon eyther there or here, let their writings being viewed manifest.
Secondly, they say if wee would here imply a particular matter concerning one of their Ministers, about imposition of hands, that is a point also left [Page 60] to further consideration, &c. I answer, no, we mean others of them that were Ministers before, and such as have had (some of them,) imposition of hands twise: and this they could not but see plainly to be our intent in that 4. article: though they wink and wil not see it, and are mute, and will not defend it, but wind away to other things not there intended. Let them therfore in their next, bring a playn defence of their Ministerie, which by their new doctrine is overthrowen: and use no more such tergiversation.
Vnto the other thing objected in the 3. & 5. articles by Lawn printed: First they signify that their testimonie against the antichristian hierarchie treated of in the Confession, is not by them reversed or weakned any way &c. I answer, these are but words: in deed and truth, the contrary wil appear. For as heretofore they Apol. p. 108.109.110.111.112. proved Antichrists baptisme to be not a true but a false sacrament; but now they plead for it Advertis. p. 54.55. to be the one true baptisme of Christ: so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian Confess. art. 29.30. & in many treatises. hierarchie of prelates Preists &c. their offices, entrance and administration: they now compare the popish ordination with the baptisme. Also they bring to warrant this, the Preists and Levites which were caled of God; as after is to be seen: and yet they would be thought, not to reverse their testimonie. Secondly they tel us how they were combred with the Anabaptists, and occasioned to think of their ministerie; as 1▪ That imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of Antichrists &c. I answer, thus also they shalbe occasioned to think of the Popes excommunication, for that is Gods ordinance as wel as their sacramēt of orders: and of the Romish Mass or supper, for that is Gods ordinance also; though by them abused to idolatrie. Yea thus the Iewes that 1. Macc. 1.12.16. f [...]l to paganisme, mought take occasion to think of the hethēs sacrifices, for they also were Gods ordinances in their first institutiō, as wel as Antichrists sacraments. But as for the Anabaptists, thē selves long since so refuted them, without this their new plea: that ther needed no fear of their strength at al. Finally, the impositiō of hands by an Antichristian prelate, upon that ministerie which is not of Christ but of Antichrists apostasie, I deny that such imposition of hands is of God: and that such the whole ministerie of Rome is, is proved at large by many scriptures, in M. Iohnsons Reasons and Arguments against spiritual cōmunion with the M [...]nist pag. 17.18. &c,
[Page 61] [...]. Their second observation is, that baptism and imposition of hands, are joyned togither among the principles, Heb. 6, 2. I answer, so are baptism & the Lords supper (now of Antichristians caled the Mass) joyned in 1. Cor. 10.2.3. & 12.13. that if this reason be good, their next thoughts must be, about the lawfulnes of the Mass.
3. Thirdly they allege that imposition of hands is in Rome stil given to the office of ministerie, and in the name of the Lord. I answer, so also the Popes bulls of excōmunication goe forth from the office of Ministery, and in the name of the Lord: but so all mischeif began, and gave occasion to the proverb, in nomine Domini incipit omne malum. But let us take a view, how imposition of hands is used now in Rome, as they say in the name of the Lord. Ordination of ministers there Bellarm. l. de sacr. ordinis. c. 2. is a sacrament, the outward signe or rite wherof, is imposition of hands: the thing signifyed, is the promise of grace. They have seven Ibid. c. 5. orders, Preists, (or Sacrificers,) Deacons, Subdeacons, A [...]oluthes, Exorcists, Readers and Ostiaries (or keepers of the dore.) They are made Preists, when by the Bishop, (who Ibid. c. 11 & 9. onely can give this order) it is sayd, Bellarm. ibid. Pontisical. lib. de ordinat. presbyt. Receiv power to offer sacrifice vnto God, and to celebrate Masses, both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. The Bishop sayth with al, Receiv the holy Ghost: the Preists are also shaved on their crownes, and anoynted with oyl on their hands; that by that unction, and the Bishops bles†sing those hands may be consecrated and sanctified of God. A stole of innocencie is put upon the Preist, and he promiseth to the Bishop and his successors, reverence, and obedience; and the Bishop gives him again the blessing of God the Fa†ther, & the †Son and the holy†Ghost that he may be blessed in his preistly order, and may offer placable hosts (or sacrifices) to God for the synns of the people. This ordination hath a Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. double effect, 1. a perpetual spiritual power; in sign wherof a character (or mark indeleble) is imprinted on them; and 2. grace making them acceptable, wherby they are inabled to execute their office. So this Bishoply ordination Ibid. c. 5. conferreth grace; and if any shal say, that the holy Ghost is not given hereby, let him (sayth the Council of Trent Sess. 23. can. 4.) be accursed. This is that holy ordination (or rather, that abominable Idol, and Rev. 13, 16 mark of the 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 ha [...]h Treat. of the Minist. p. 98.—105. set down heretofore 33. reasons and differences proving by many scriptures, that the popish preists office, [Page 62] is not the Christian Pastors office. Yea he affirmed the Answer to M. Iakob in pref. sec. 6. 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 Pontific. de cōscer. elect. in episc. 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 Heb. 5, 4. 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 Rev. 16.13, 14. 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 2. King. [...]3.5. Zeph. 1, 4. 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 [Page 63] wrote against M. Hilderdersh. thus, Treat. of the Minist. p. 89. 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 1. Cor. 1 [...] 5.28. office and of a true Heb. 5, [...]. 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 [Page 64] water. Now these mens testimonie heretofore hath been strong Apol. p. 46, 47—54. Reasons & arg. against spiritual cō munion with the Minist. of England, the whole book. 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 cōmunion with all other churches &c. I answer, this reason is good, if communion be kept in the 1. Ioh. 1.6.7. 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 Ex Calvini opusc. Form. cōf. cui se adstring. &c. 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 Sess. 23. can. 6. Trent, accursed. Is not here good communion? Yea let me further tel them, how the learned and better sort in England, have disclaymed cōmunion with that Romish clergie. D. Fulk, in the Answ. of a true Christian to a counterfeyt catholik, sayth, Answer to art. 13. 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 Bishops, Preists, Deacons, any better then the state of lay men, but farr worse: for we judge them to be nothing ells but Antichristianitie, heresie and blasphemie. And therfore we receiv none of them to minister in our church, except they forswear your religion: and so their admission is not an allowing of your ordering, but a new caling unto the Ministerie. Thus wrote M. Fulk: but now these our opposites, to shew how they would keep cōmunion with Rome, allow of their ordering, as of their baptising, which they plead to be true baptisme, as after shall appear. Yet let them shew us whither al the hierarchie of Antichrist, as Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Friers, Monks, Iesuits, Seminaries, Preists, Parsons, Vicars, with the rest of that crew, be all of them to be admitted true Ministers into a Christian church, by vertue of the Imposition of hands, had in that kingdom of the Beast: and if not al, which of them must be reordeyned, and vvhich not. Themselves have acknowledged Answ. to M. Iakob. p. 122. that the Ministers of Antichrist, are the spirits of Divils, Rev. 16, 13.14. let them now if they can, manifest them to be the Ministers of Christ.
[Page 65]9. We thought best (say they) to stay and consider further &c. if we find it ought to be doon, we can doe it at any time, &c. Then (say I) they should have stayed the practise of admitting such a teacher to administer, til they had been resolved whither his office and ordination had been of God or no. But first they let him administer, then they inquire of the lawfulnes: the Godly heretofore did not so in a case of doubt, but stayed the administration of some preists, til they had assurance from God. Ezr. 2.62.63.
10. The church (say they) did chuse him into office, and we by prayer commended him to God for his grace and assistance in the ministration therof. Which we did without imposition of hands at that time; as both our selves had before doon, at our first growing into order: and as the French and Dutch churches also did &c. I answer, things are darkly set down: by saying first the church did, then, and we; they occasion us to ask what church they mean, their own particular, or some other. If their own, whether they chose him to an office that had none before: or chose him from a false office to a true: or chose him being already a true officer, to be theirs, as they admitt the members of an other Church to be a member of theirs by prayer. If the last were not, how stands their comparison between baptism & ordination? If they did so: then they abuse the reader with the example of their own ordination before. For they had renounced their former Ministerie as false; and received a new, by the election and ordination of the people (though at the first without that sign spokē of,) who gave them a ministerie which they never had. The outward sign at that time was not used, onely because ther were not Elders before: now ther were Elders which imposed hands at the same time on others. It is a known fallacie, to pretend that for a cause wch is not the cause. Moreover let them say whither thei [...] Teachers former election were not as holy as his ordination: and why then they rep [...]te one and not an other?
11. Observ (say they) how these and their partakers can hold that the people having no office may excōmunicate, and some of them that they may also minister the sacraments: and yet can except against such as are in office, if they doo but make question of a ceremonie &c. I answer; the first wee hold but as themselves heretofore did: & upon what ground they have left it, is before discussed. The second as touching us, (so farr as I know) is a slander, a mere untruth. I know not one among [Page 66] us, that holdeth men without office, may minister the sacraments. The third, if it be as they say a question but of a ceremonie, and not of the very substance of the ministerie, to be reteyned as their baptisme, I wil profess to cease striving thereabout, (though I think they err in it,) yea and repent that I have striven so farr. But if it be in deed more then a ceremonie, as I suppose the things forespoken wil manifest; let these men take heed how they so dissemble, for Isa. 29.1 [...] Woe vnto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord. Of the Anabaptists objections we have spoken before. And now let him that readeth, consider, what weight ther is in their later thoughts, compared with their former judgments confirmed by so many reasons, as the publik writings shew. Let him also note, how for this later point which they count but a ceremonie, they say many things as we have heard: but for the former, their own ministerie, which is a matter of substance and most neerly concerns them, they say nothing, but turn aside as if they saw it not. And for this also, let the reader observ Mr Iohnsons own words, in answer to Mr Hildershā, Treat. of the Minist. p. 122. who can bring a Iob. 14.4. clean thing out of filthynes? Is it possible that a lawful ordination, should be had from the ministers & Apostasie of Antichrist? Mat. 7.16. 2. Cor. 6, 14, 15, 16. with 2. Thes. 2.3. And if he be loth to stand to his former assertions: let him yet shew what comfort or assurāce any can have of the ordination in the Papacie, that it is frō Ioh. 3.27. heavē; considering the Preists have their authoritie from the Bishops, the Bishops from the Pope: the Popes (as their own writers & Chroniclers doo record,) have been divided by schismes, 2, or 3, Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 14. Popes at once, one cursing and condemning another, and among the successors, one repealing Platina in Steph. 2. Rom. & Th [...]od. 2. the acts of an other. And among the rest, one shee Platinain Ioh. 8. Pope Ioan an harlot. And among many schismes one (which was the 22.) dured Ioh. Ma [...]ij de schism. & Concil. c. 13. fourtie yeres, wherin the Antipopes so rent their Babel-church into factions, that the cheifest and learnedest of the clergie, could not discern which of them was the true successor of Peter, (as they use to speak) but some clave to one Pope, some to another. Had these no [...] power from Christ to make ministers in his church? or are not they strangely caried, that had rather derive their Ministerie by uncertayn succession frō such beasts▪ then from the Lords true Church and people? And may we think that when God bring the Iewes agayn to the fayth (as he hath Rom, 11. promised,) that they wil goe to Antichrists throne for to erect a ministerie for them? [Page 67] These and the like things considered, may shew what soundnes is in their doctrine and practise, that fetch their ordination from Rome, as they doo their baptisme.
Finally let me admonish the reader, that The man of syn, who boasteth himself to be Sext. decr l. 5. tit. 9. c. 5 in glossa. the Bishop of the whole world, as also to have the Ibid. l. 3. tit. 16. c. unico, in gl. Princedom (or soveraygntie) of al the world; and may not onely order and degrade preists, but set up and depose Princes, so exalting himself above 2. Thes. 2.4. al that is caled God; is for thus doing, to be accounted a traytor against Christ and al Princes of the world. And as the dayes have been when he chalenged both church and crown of England (as in Matth. Parisiens. in vita Iohan▪ regis. King Iohns time,) to have the Prince his vassal, as wel as the Preists his subjects: so is his wil to doo alwayes and in al places. But this being tyrannie and usurpation in him both over church and common wealth, he hath alwayes had as good authority to make a Lord Maior in London, as to make a Bishop there, and to create a Prince as wel as a Preist or prelate: the one is injurious to the State, the other to the Church. And for men to hold or derive the preisthood or ministerie from that Vsurper, hath no more warrant that I know of, then if one would hold or derive a magistracie from him; for as God hath given every cō mon wealth power next under himself, to cal & set up Magistrates, according to the lawes of Realmes; so Christ hath given every church power next under himself, to call and constitute ministers according to his word: and not to derive their spiritual functions from his professed Adversarie, whom he hath promised to 2. Thes. 2.8. consume with the spirit of his mouth, & to abolish with the brightnes of his cōming.
The 5. point of difference: in the Letter.
1. WEe had learned that it was gross errour, and notorious absurditie,Apolog. p. 113. eyther to hold the Popish Church to be a true Church, having a true Ministerie and true sacraments, or ells that men men must admitt of rebaptising. But now we have heard, that the baptisme of the Popish church is true baptisme (by which we are bound to cōmunion,) or ells that men must be rebaptised: and that the church of Rome is the Church of God, because Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God.
[Page 68]With this they joyn the 4. & 8. out of the printed copie.
4. The 31. Article of our Confession, (and also our Apologie, p. 109.) professeth that such ecclesiastical assemblies as remayn so in confusion and bondage under that Antichristian ministerie, courts, canons, &c. cannot be estemed true visible churches &c. These now plead, not onely for thē, but for Rome it self, to be the true church of God.
8. The 8. is as the 5. before expressed.
These things are confirmed by sundry scriptures and reasons in the places quoted, as the reader may there see.
Against these their former testimonies they now Advertis. p. 54. thus dispute. 1: Jt is true baptisme: as the circumcision in Jsraels Apostasie was true circumcision. I answer, these are their own assertions: but we would hear, Thus sayth the Lord. True circumcision was the seal of the righteteousnes of faith: Rom. 4.11. Israel in their Apostasie were fallen from the faith, Hos. 11, 12. they were without the true God, & without preist to teach, and without law, 2. Chron. 15.3. and how then could they have the true circumcision, the seal of the righteousnes of faith, and forgivnes of their synns, in that sinful estate? 2. The matching of Popish baptisme and Israels circumcision, though in this they agree that they are both false sacraments & lying signes: yet is baptisme ten times more defiled in Rome, then circumcision was in Israel. Let us take a view therof, as it is at the best, and now refined by the Iesuites. When any man comes to be baptised in Poperie, after some quaestions praemised, 1. Bellarm. de sac bap. l. 1. c. [...]5. He hath the sign of the Cross made on his forehead and breast; which holy signe among other good properties, hath power to drive away B [...]llarm. de imag. l. 2. c. 29. divils, 2. Then foloweth Bell. de bapt. l. 1. c. 2 [...]. Exorcisme that is, adjuration of the Divils to goe frō the man that is to be baptised. 3. After that comes Bell. ibid Exsufflatiō or blowing of the Divils away, & an afflation of the good spirit in their sted. 4. Next foloweth the tasting of salt, which is unto them in sted of the Eucharist. 5. Then the touching of the nosthrills and eares with spittle, and saying Ephata, that is, be opened. 6. After that the preist gives him imposition of hands, and his blessing. 7. And then he is anoynted with blessed oil on his brest and showlders. Bellarmin. ibid. c. 26. 8. When he is thus sanctified, a name is given unto him. 9. He must have Godfathers or Godmothers, to instruct him in time to come. 10. Then folowes consecration of the water, 11. And a dipping three times into [Page 69] the water, in the name of the Father of the Son & of the holy Ghost. 12. After comes Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. the kyss of peace, in sign that the brother is baptised. 13. And an Vnction of the Chrisme, on the crown of his head. 14. Then is a waxe candle lighted given him, for a sign of faith and grace received, & that he is trāslated out of darknes into light. 15. And a white garment is put upō him, which he weareth for a certayn time. These pageants are playd in Babels language, an unknown tongue: & this baptisme ex opere operato, by the work wrought (for here is a great deal more doon then Christ ever would,) dooth Bellar. de de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 3 conferr grace, and in very deed Bell. de bapt. l. 1. c. 13. taketh away al synns, so as they are not onely not imputed, but ther is not any thing that can be imputed for a blame unto him. And if any shal say, that grace is not conferred by the work doon, the Fathers of the Council of Trent have decreed, Concil. Trident. ses. 7. de sacr. in Gē. can. 8. Let him be accursed. And although this baptism be of it self so gracious, yet any graceless person may baptise in time of need, be it man or Bell. de bapt. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 1. c. 25. woman, be it Christian, Jew, Turk or Pagan: baptisme hath his effect, & conferreth popish grace, and washeth away synns notwithstanding. This is the baptisme about which we contend: now let us proceed with our opposites arguments. Jf [...] be not a true baptisme (Advert. p. 54. say they) it is a false: and false baptism is not Gods baptisme. &c. A true baptisme we are bound to have, when we have the means, wherfore they that hold it not to be true baptisme, must be rebaptised. I answer, we doubt not but it is a false baptisme, and a lying signe, wherwith Antichrist deceiveth his subjects, under a shew of Christianitie: 1. because it is not possible for any work of a mere man (much less of a sacrilegious preist) to give grace, or to take away synns, for this is peculiar to Ioh. 1.17. Heb. 10, 10, 14. 1. Ioh. 1.7.Christ God and man, and to his most precious blood, which onely clenseth us from al syn. 2. because true baptisme being a sign of the Act. 22.16 Rom. 4, 11. & 6, 3, 4. 1. Cor. 12, 13. washing away of synns, and a seal of the righteousnes of faith, of our ingraffing into Christ, his death, burial & resurrection: it cannot be that Antichrist the man of syn, and his worshippers, which are by the sentence of God devote unto 2 Thes. 2, 4— 12. Rev. 14, 9, 10. damnation, should have from God such a sign and seal; but they falsly usurp the same, as many other things to their just judgement. Yet need not men that discern and forsake those lyes and impostures, to have any new washing: because the Idolaters heretofore 2 Chro. 30, 1. &c. Ezr. 6, 21, repenting & forsaking their false synagogues and lying signes in thē usurped, needed not a new outward cutting or circumcising, as is [Page 70] shewed at large in our former writings, Discoverie, p. 116.—120. Apologie p. 110.—113. For though the degree of syn in Rome be greater by farr then that of Apostate Israel, (as elswhere Arrow against Idol. c. 5. is also manifested:) yet seing they then were fallen 2. Chro. 15.3. from God and from his church, and so were Ier. 3.8. divorsed from the Lord, and were Hos. 2.2. not his wife, but Hos. 13.1 dead in their synns: the ordinances of God which they in shew reteyned, could not be unto them the signes and seals of forgivnes of synns, and of life eternal, and therfore were in their use of them, false and deceytful; as were also the ordinances of God reteyned in other nations, as Numb. 23, 1. Pompon. Laetus de sacerdo. Tibull. l. 1. Eleg. 10. & l. 2. eleg. 1. 2. Homer. Odyss. 3. & Iliad. 1. Virgil. Aen. 2. Caesar. bell. Gall. l. 6. Altars, Sacrifices, Preists, tithes, firstfruits, incense, meat offrings, drink offrings, feasts, baptismes or washings, anoyntings, excōmunications, prayers, vowes, & many the like, wherof al histories doo bear record, that the Gentiles did reteyn them.
2. They proceed secondly and say, Jf the baptism had in the church of Rome be not true baptisme, then it is not the Lords baptisme: and then they which have no other but it, should get the Lords baptisme, afore they come to the Lords table, to eat the Lords supper &c. I answer, this reason is the same in effect with the former, and there answered, as also long agoe objected by the enemies of the truth, and refuted by Discov. p. 116. &c. M. Barrow. We have gotten the Lords baptisme by coming to the Lord in true faith and repentance, who Mat. 3.11 1. Cor. 12.13. 1. Pet. 3, 21. baptiseth us with the wholy Ghost and with fyre. As for the outward washing which we had, it need not be repeted; as before is shewed: and we may as lawfully eat the Lords supper without a new washing, as the Idolatrous Israelites turning to the Lord, might eat the passover with out a new cutting or circumcising. 2. Chron. 30.1.5.11.18.19.20.21.25. Ezra. 6.21. So wheras they charge us with profaning the Lords table, it is turned upon their own heads: for they have these many yeres professed the Romish baptisme to be not a true but a Apol p. 110—113. false Sacrament, whiles yet without a new washing they did partake of the Lords supper. If this be to pollute and prophane it, as now they press us, why doo they not first repent themselves of such prophanation; why cal they not in, their former writings, and refute them?
3. Agayn (they dispute) ther is but one baptism, Eph. 4.5. Baptisme in the church of Rome, eyther is that one baptisme or is not it. Jf it be that one: then is it true baptism: if not, then they which have no other but it, have not that one baptisme, and therfore must get it &c. I answer, 1. This agayn [Page 71] is the same argument with the former, and before answered.
2. This ground from Eph. 4.5. was that which Epist. l. 1 epist. 12. Cyprian builded on, who taught rebaptising of such as had been baptised by heretiks: whose arguments seing our Adversaries thus urge, we pray them tel us, whither they be of Cyprians mind for rebaptising; and if they be, wherein they differ in that point from Anabaptists? If they be not, then it seemeth they hold that al such as are baptised by hereticks, Antichrists, excommunicates, schismatiks, and other like, have that one true baptisme of God, Eph. 4.5. and so have the seal from God of forgivenes of synns, and are one body with thē selves. And if not, then they reason but for fashion sake, to trouble us and the world with questions.
4. Furthermore (they argue) such baptism is eyther a seal of Gods covenant or not. Jf it be, then sure it is true baptisme. Jf not, then 1. they which have no other baptisme, must with the Anabaptists get another, that they may be assured they have the seal of Gods covenant &c. 2. then that ther neyther have been nor shal be in Babylō any of Gods people &c. Rev. 18.4. 3. then, baptism now had in Apostate churches is not answerable to the circumcision had in the Apostasie of Jsrael: for that was true circumcision &c. I answer, they may by a litle varying of words make an 100. such reasons, alone and the same; al begging the question, and prooving nothing. What one scripture or reason frō thence, is here brought to prove Antichrists baptism, true baptisme? Let any mā define by the word, true Christiā baptism, & then compare therwith the blasphemous Christening before set out from Bellarmine, and he shall see what accord is between them. And wheras the burden of these mens song, is, wee must ells baptise agayn: this is no proof at al; for (besides that which is before answered,) what if it be our errour that we baptise not agayn? wher be then all their proofs, are they not vanished into smoke? Verily I should much rather incline to Cyprians error (though I am farr from it) for a new washing: then approve the sacrilegious washing used by that man of syn with most high dishonour to the blood of Christ, to be that one true Christian baptism; the seal of Gods covenant. For that of Rev. 18.4. because God caleth his people out of Babylon, therfore Babylons baptisme is true baptisme, is without all colour of reason. As if one should argue thus, God by Ieremie caled his people out of Babylon, Ier. 51, 45. therfore Babylons sacrifices, and sacraments, [Page 72] were true. Who would not rather conclude hereby the contrary: God caleth his people out of her, therfore she vvith all her counfeyt service, sacraments & apish imitation of Gods holy things, are detestable and cursed. Agayn, a people may be Gods, though unbaptised: as the uncircumcised Israelites vvere Gods people, Deut. 29.10,—13. vvith Josh. 5, 4, 5. The 3. point of Israels circumcision to be true, is but barely by them affirmed, vvithout proof; and is before disproved. And if they shal continue thus to say al things, and prove nothing: I vvill never trouble my self more to ansvver their discourses.
5. Finally (they reason) if baptisme in Rome be not true baptism, then (as we also sayd) it is an idol; bearing shew and image of that which it is not in truth. And jdols ar things of naught &c. and so baptisme in Rome, is a thing of naught; and to be estemed as nothing in the world, as filth, or doung &c. I answer, idols are of two sorts; some merely devised by men, as Ieroboams 1. King. 12 28. calves: some perverted by men from holy signes to Idols, as 2 King. 18 4.the brazen Serpent. Both these kinds are in popish baptisme. For their crosses, exorcismes, greasings &c. are Idols of the first sort, worse then Ieroboams bullocks: their washing with water in nomine patris &c. is of the second sort, that is, Gods ordinance turned into an Idol as was the brazen Serpent. Thus is there a mixture in Antichrists Christening, of both sorts of abominations. Therfore have we renounced that Romish baptisme, as an impure idol in their abuse, standing up in the place of Christ and his precious blood, which it is not; pretending to give grace, and wash away synns, which it dooth not; but it is a lye Isa. 44, 20 in the right hand of al that so receiv it: and the saying of the Apostle is verified in it, an idol is nothing in the world. 1 Cor. 8.4. Yet, I hope, they think not that the Apostle is contrarie to the Prophet, who sayth their idols are silver and gold, the work of mens hands, Psal. 115.4. an idol then for the matter and workmanship is somthing, but for the relation unto God, or divine grace, it is nothing: and thus th'Apostle meaneth as his next words shew, 1. Cor. 8. [...]. ther is no other God but one. So Popish baptisme, as touching the material thing is somwhat, the salt, the water, the oil, are God creatures: the outward action is the work of the hands of an idolatrous Preist; and this work remayneth as did the work of the Idolaters circumcising in Israel: but as touching the relation, (which is the mayn thing in a sacrament,) that it should [Page 73] seal up unto them the forgivnes of synns, and (as they blasphemously say) quite take away synns, and conferr grace; so it is a vayn idol and nothing: for neyther doo the true Sacraments in Christs church work any such effect to Gods own people: and as for that Antichristian synagogue, it is not appointed to salvation, but to condemnation by the just sentence of God. Rev. 17.11. & 18.8.20.21. 2. Thes. 2.11.12. Therfore it wil not help them to say, that baptisme in it self considered, is Christs ordinance: for the brazen Num. 21.8.9. Serpent was in it self Gods ordinance at first, and a sacramental signe of their redemption by Ioh. 3.14 15. Christ, yet they that burnt incense to it, made it an Idol, and therfore as 2. King, 18, 4. Nehushtan, (a peece of brass,) it was destroyed. Yea this is acknowledged of the popish baptisme, by the most learned and conscionable of our own Land. M. Perkins sayth, and proveth it, Warning against Idolat. p. 33. The Church of Rome transformeth the sacraments to Jdols, by teaching that they conferr grace ex opere operato, by the work doon &c. To this effect (sayth he) the Missal. reformat. de benedict. fontis. Preist is appointed to pray, that the nature of waters might conceiv the vertue of sanctification: that God would make the water fruitful by the secret admixtiō of his godhead, that having cō ceived sanctification, a new creature may spring out of the immaculate womb of the divine fountayn, that it may be living water &c. Yea further he sheweth that Ibid. p. 18 —20. God himself, & Christ, being worshiped in, at, or before an image, is presently transformed into an idol. But what need I insist upon other men; even Mr Iohnson himself, hath pleaded Answ. to Mr Iakob. p. 120. the Prelates and Preists (which administer baptisme) to be Jdol shepheards, the Apol. pa. 112.113. sacraments to be not true but false; and citeth against them their own testimonies to prove that Treat. of the Minist. p. 15. Christ himself is made an idol among thē. Yet loe how he now inveigheth against us, for saying that the baptisme in Antichrists synagogue is an Idol.
But now as Satan hath begun to perswade Antichrists christening to be Christs true baptisme, (although the scripture plainly sayth, 2 Cor. 6.15· what concord hath Christ with Belial?) so he wil not cease there, but justify the cursed Mass, by like reason, to be the blessed Supper of our Lord. For it is the same church that injoyeth these 2. sacramts, the same preists minister them, both in the same Babylonish unknown language, both of thē having Christs institutiō abused by the man of syn: and as water is in their baptisme, so bread and wine is in their mass: as in baptism they use the frō Mat. 28.19. name of the Father the Son & the holy Ghost, so in the Mass, they use frō Mat. 26.26. Take eat this is my body &c. [Page 74] Now why should one of these sacraments be true, and not an other? Al that are not Antichrists bondmen, detest his Mass as a monstrous idol: let them that lyst, honour his baptism. Agayn, excō munication is Gods ordinance as wel as baptisme: and these our opposits say, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26. that by it a man is cut off from communion with al churches of Christ upon earth, having his synns also bound in heaven; as on the contrary by baptisme we are entred into communion with al churches of Christ in the world. This Excommunication the church of Rome useth as wel as baptisme, and hath power from Christ to doo it, as wel as to baptise: wherupon it wil folow, if we be bound to communion with them that they baptise, we are also bound to avoyd the communion of them that they excommunicate. Now for asmuch as these our Opposites themselves (besides al other) that have separated from the church and doctrines of Rome, have many curses and Anathemaes layd upon them by the council of Trent and Popes Bulls: what ar they the better for being baptised in their infancie, now that they are excommunicated in their mans age.
They told us Advert. p. 46. before, (and sayd, we have not yet learned it as we should,) that by our baptism we ar bound to communion: and now let them also teach us, whither by their excommunication, we ar not bound to shun their communion. Or if they wil not answer us, let them answer the Papists, who Harding. confut. of the Apol. part. 2. c. 5. plead that their Apostate preists being divided and cut of from the church, and excommunicate, may not lawfully minister the sacraments. And wheras M. Iewel complayned, we have been cast out by these men [...], being cursed of them (as they use to say) with b [...]l book and candel: Harding answereth; Ibidem part. 5. c. 15. To be excommunicate, ye have deserved &c. neyther were ye by excommunication put from vs, til ye had by contumacie severed your selves from the Church, and shewed your selves desperate and incorrigible. And what wil they say to the Synedrion, the representative church of England, whose Constit. & can. eccles. 1603. excōmunications ipso facto, if they be of the Lord, doo forbid al Christians to cōmunicate with these men, that thus plead for Antichrists baptisme: yea they wil tel M. Iohnson in his own words, that it Treat. of the minist. of Engl. p. 17. is a fearful syn, (their Church being a true Church) to contemne their excōmunication. If they answer, their excōmunications are unjust, therfore they are of no weight: this wil not salve the sore. For 1. al excōmunicated, wil say they are cast out unjustly: shal their own sayings be accepted? if not, then neyther these mens; til their particular causes be cleared. In the [Page 75] mean time, men wil more regard the church, then him that is cast out of the Church: and according both to Mat. 18.17. Christs doctrine, & the doctrine of the Church Artic. of religion, 33 of England, he should be estemed an hethen and publican. 2. Agayn many have been cast out for contemptuous refusing to come unto the Bishops synedrion, & they have left those Bishops, Ministers, Consistories & Churches, as being al false and Antichristian, unto M. Iohns. his Treat. of the Minist. of Eng. p. 60, 62. whom no church duty of admonition &c. did belong. And now that these men have changed their mind, and count it a true Church and Ministerie, (though with corruptions): how wil they be able to bear out such as are excōmunicated, for so great contempt and errour? 3. Thirdly, as Antichristians doo excōmunicate such as they should not: so doo they baptise such as they ought not, even open impenitent Idolaters and their seed, the Mat, 3.7. generation of Vipers which Iohn Baptist would refuse. Yea Mr Iohnson himself hath sayd of a better estate then Romes, that Treat. of the Minist. p. 91. Gods covenant is sacrilegiously violated, whiles it is sayd to the open wicked (in delivering them the seals of Gods covenant) Thou art righteous. Therfore if the Popes excōmunicatorie bulls, are but bubbles because they are unjustly executed: his baptisme also will be found but a fiction, & no true seal of salvation to such as receive it of him.
Finally touching circumcision, I think it cannot be manifested that any peoples fallen from God and his Church, using it colourablie for a religious action, (as al Antichristians and heretiks doo baptism at this day,) did or were bound to cutt their foreskin the second time, if they came unto the truth of God: as for example, the Colchians, Aegyptians and Aethiopians, whom Herodot. in Euterpe. histories mentiō to be circumcised; or the Samaritans, whom Mr Iohnson In Answ. to Mr Iakob. p. 68. acknowledgeth to have stil vsed circumcision. Hereunto we may add out of the Iewish records, how they hold, that Maimonie, tract. de circumcis. c. 2. Al have leav to circumcise, yea though it be an uncircumcised person, or a servant, or a woman, or a child, circumcising in the place where ther is no man. But an hethen may not circumcise at al: yet if he doo circumcise, ther is no need to return & circumcise the second time. If this rule stand, we shal not need to repeat our outward washing in baptism, though given us by Antichrist, or any other aliants from the church & covenant of promise.
Of the Church of Rome.
The Church of Rome being acknowledged by al that fear God, to be the throne of Antichrist, & Mr Iohnson himself having professed, In answ. to M. Iakob. pref. sect. 6. that the hierachie and Church-constitution of Antichrist, is the most detestable anarchie of Satan that ever was: yet imitating now M. Gifford, M. Bernard▪ and other professed enemies of the truth, he pleads for that Church after this manner. Advert. p. 58, 59. The Apostle expressly teacheth, that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God, 2. Thes. 2, 4.▪ And by the Temple understanding the Church of God, it wil folow that Antichrist should sit in the Church of God, and is there to be sought and found, and not among Jewes, Turks, Pagans &c. neyther that Antichrist takes away wholly the church of God, and every truth and ordinance of the Lord &c. I answer, truth & errour are closely couched togither in this their plea: for the discerning wherof, we are to consider, first how Antichrists church is described in Gods word; secondly what the state of the church of Rome is at this day. The Antichristian synagogue is by the holy Ghost caled a Rev. 13, 11. Beast, which signifyeth a Dan. 7.23 kingdom: it is named also a Rev. 11.8 great citie, which noteth the largenes of that politie and kingdom. It cometh up Rev. 13.11. out of the earth, as being of this world, (which Christs kingdom that Rev. 21, 2 cōmeth down from heaven is not:) and therfore is caled 2 Thes. 2.3. a man of syn, and a Rev. 17, 1. great whore: whose head is Rev. 9.11 Abaddon or Apollyon, the destroyer of others, and himself the son 2 Thes. 2.3 of perdition; and they that follow him, are the children of verse 12. damnation. This wicked generation warreth Rev. 17.14.6. & 13 7. against the Lamb Christ, and against the saincts; verse 6. blasphemeth Gods name & tabernacle and them that dwel in heaven, [...]hat is the true Church, whose Phil. 3, 20 conversation is heavenly. Yet doo they all this mischeif under shew of Christian religion: & therfore this beast hath horns Rev. 13, 11. like the Lamb Christ, this whore is Rev-17.4. arayed with purple & skarlet, guilded with gold, precious stones and pearles; as if she were the Psal. 45, 9 13. Ezek. 16 10.—13. Song. [...], 5. Queen and spowse of Christ: she hath Prov. 7.14. peace offrings & Vovves, as if she were devowt in psal. 66.13. Gods service: Prov. 9.16, 17. bread and waters, as ready to refresh the weary sowls. Her doctrines Prov. 5.3 1. Tim. 4.2. sweet & amiable lye [...] spoken in hypocrisie: but yet confirmed with 2. Thes. 2.9. Rev. 13, 13.14. signes and miracles, as if they came from heaven: her power and efficacie great, Prov. 7.21.26. Rev. 17, 2. & 18, 23. prevayling over the many and the mighty, the Kings & Princes of world, deceiving al nations with her inchantments, and [Page 77] if it were possible, Mat. 24, 24. Gods very elect: her continuance and outward prosperitie Rev. 13, 5. & 1 [...].7. & 20, 2, 4. long: her end Rev. 18.19.21. & 19.20.21. 2. Thes. 2.8. miserable, consumed with the spirit of the Lords mouth, and abolished with the brightnes of his cōming: and for her destruction the Rev. 18.20. & 19.1.2. heavens shall rejoyce and sing praises to God.
Now for to find the accomplishment of these things, we are directed by the now Romish religion, to a Catholik or Vniversal church, one part wherof lives on earth, an other under the earth, and a third part in heaven. 1. On earth, is the whole multitude of such as are named Christians through the world, united as a catholik body under one visible head the Pope, who with his 2 horns Rev. 13.11. like the Lamb, pretendeth to be Christs Vicar in the Kingdom & Preisthood; and is professed of his vassals, Bellarm. pref. in ll. de summo Pont. to be that tri [...]d precious corner stone, that sure foundation in Sion, Jsa. 28.16. and it is Extra. com. l. 1. de major. & obed. c. vnā sanctā. declared, defined and pronounced, that it is of necessity to salvation, for al men to be subject unto him. Vnder this Captain are three bands of souldiers, Bell. pref. in ll. de membr. eccles. milit. the first clergie men, as Bishops, Preists, Deacons, Subdeacons and the rest of those shavelings; the second Lay men, as Kings, Pinces, Nobles,, Citizens, and Commons of al sorts and vocations; the third sort is both of the Clergie and Laitie, caled Monks or Regulars. 2. Vnder the earth, or in Purgatorie fyre, are the sowles (they say) of al such Bellarm. de purg. l. 2 c. 1. as dye with venial synns, whose payns are to be holpen by prayers, and masses, sayd for them by such as are alive on earth. 3. In heaven, are the sowls of men departed in the popish fayth, and delivered from purgatorie: some of which, the Pope Bell. de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 7.8. &c. canonizeth for Saincts, whom the people on earth are religiously to honour and pray unto, as their mediators with God. This church on earth, Idem d [...] eccles. m [...]lit. l. 3. c. 14. cannot err in things which it commandeth men to beleev o [...] doo, whither they be expressed in scripture or not: therfore men must Test. Rhē. in 1. Tim. 3 s. 9. beleev in her, and trust her in al things; for the truth of the faith as touching us, relyeth upon her Bell. ibid. authoritie: and she hath power Bell. de Rō. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. to make lawes which doo bind and constreyn mens consciences.
These things premissed, I come to our Opposites arguments. Their first reason from 2. Thes. 2.4. is unperfectly alledged, for the [Page 78] text there sayth of the man of syn, that he dooth sit as God in the Tē ple of God: wherupon their conclusion must be, that Antichrist sitteth as God in the church of God. And if they can prove that he is the true God, I wil yeild that his temple is the true temple, & his Church the true church. Otherweise, if he be but an Idol and not God: his Temple church and body, wil prove but an Idol like himself, and his blasphemie is worse then theirs Rev. 2, 9. & 3, 9. which sayd they were Jewes and were not, but did lye, and were the synagogue of Satan.
Secondly, they take it for granted, that by the Temple is meant the church: and so goe on in obscuritie. Wheras the Temple did primarily figure out Christ, Joh. 2.19.21. and in the heavenly Ierusalem, (the true church), ther was no other temple seen, but the Lord God almightie and the Lamb (Christ) which are the Temple of it, Rev. 21.22. If in this sense we understand that speech of Paul 2. Thes. 2.4. touching Antichrist, then must we translate the words, (as Augustin. de civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 19. some ancient Doctors have doon) eis ton Naon, for the Temple, or, as if he himself were the Temple: and so in deed Antichrist taketh upon him the person and office of Christ, (under pretence of his Vicarship,) 2 Thes. 2, 4. shewing himself that he is God, proclayming himself to be the Bellar. de Pont. l. 2. c. 31. brydegroom of the Church, which is the office of Ioh. 3, 21. Christ, yea taking a title above him, for wheras Christ is caled Pontifex magnus, the Heb. 4, 14 Great high Preist: the Pope is usually intituled Pontifex maximus the Greatest high-preist; and reason ther is for it, because Steph. Patracens. in orat. in Cō cil. Laterā. sub Leon. 10. in the Pope ther is power above all powers, as well of heaven as of earth, as in a publick Council it was spoken of this Beast. Now that these things should be true of the man of syn, otherwise then by lyes spoken in hypocrisie, none of grace, I know, wil affirm.
Secondarily the Temple figured the Church, but first the catholik or universal church Eph. 2, 21. then every particular church by proportion, 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. Which of these two, our opposites doo intend, they shew not. If they mean a particular church; it wil not agree with the prophesies of Antichrist, whose Citie or church is so great, as Rev. 11, 8.9. peoples, kinreds, tongues & nations, doo dwel in the streets therof. Neyther is that answerable to the Temple in Israel, which was not for one synagogue, but for Deut. 16.16. the whole natiō of the Iewes, and for the 1. King. 8, 41.42, Ioh. 12, 20. Act. 8, 27. Gentiles that came to the faith, through the world. If they mean the catholik or vniversal church, (vvhich indeed Antichrist claymeth for his Temple,) then we are to be taught of them, [Page 79] how that whoorish company that Rev. 13, 4 worship the Beast and Dragon; can possibly be the true catholik church and spowse of Christ, otherweise then by counterfeysance and lying ostentation, even as the Divil himself is an 2. Cor. 11.14. Angel of light.
And the very word Temple, leadeth vs to vnderstand Antichrists church to be but a counterfeyt. For what was the Temple or Tabernacle in Israel? Not the Church or congregation of Gods people properly, for they were the 1. King. 8, 30.33, 35 &c. worshipers of God in the Tē ple: but it was a sacramental sign of Gods dwelling with his people, as it is written, Exo. 25, 8. they shal make me a sanctuarie, that J may dwell among them. So Solomon built the Temple that God might 2 Chron. 6, 2. dwel therin:: and for the times under the gospel, God promised, Ezek. 37, 26, 27. J wil set my sanctuary among them for ever, & my Tabernacle shalbe with them, & J wilbe their God, & they shalbe my people: and the fulfilling herof is set down Rev. 21, 3. behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he wil dwel with them, and they shalbe his people. So in Revelat. 11.1. the Tēple is distinguished frō thē that worship therein, which is the people. The Temple then, was an outward sign of Gods presence with his people, and of his inward dwelling in their harts by Eph. 3.17. & 2.22. 1. Cor. 3.16 faith and by his Spirit unto their salvation: so Antichrists Temple is an outward shew of his presence with that seduced people, in whose harts Rev. 13.4 14. & 16, 14. 1. Tim. 4.1. 2 Thes. 2.10.11.12. he dwelleth by Popish faith and by his Spirit of error carying them to damnation. But as Antichrist shal not professedly deny the true God or Christ, though in deed and truth 2 Thes. 2.4. he falsly sheweth himself that he is God: so shal he not professedly deny the Temple or church of God, but falsly vaunt his adulterous synagogue to be the same. Gods true temple and tabernacle is in mount Sion, in Rev. 14.1.17. heaven, wher God sitteth Rev. 16.17. & 7.15. on a throne and dwelleth among his people; wher is the Rev. 11.19. Isa. 29.6 ark of his covenant, and from thence lightnings, voices, thundrings, earthquake and hayl, come forth against the Antichristians his enemies, and Rev. 16.1 2.10. vials of his wrath powred out upon the throne of the beast, and on the men that have his mark. On the contrary, the Beast, which is the kingdom of Antichrist, ascendeth from beneath Rev. 17, 8 out of the bottomless pit, and Rev. 13, 6 blasphemeth this heavenly tabernacle, and sitteth Rev. 16.19. in Babylon upon the Rev. 13, 2. Dragons throne, and Rev. 19.19. fighteth against the Lamb, and against the Saincts, Rev. 11.2 treading under foot the holy Citie, and Dan. 8.11 casting down the place of Christs sanctuarie. When th'Apostle therfore telleth [Page 80] us, that Antichrist sitteth as God in the Temple of God, it is to be understood first of their invading and destroying of Gods church and people, as the hethens of old Psal. 79. Dan. 8.11.13. & 11.36. Ier. 52, 12.13. &c. Lam. 2, 7, 9· dealt with Ierusalē & dwellers therin; secōdly of their own vayn Ezek. 28.2.6. Isa. 14.13.14. 2. Thes. 2.9.10. Rev 13.11.14. & 17.4. 2. Cor. 11.13.14.15.ostentatiō, whiles they will have it caled the Christian catholik church, and the Pope the head of the same.
The next point that Antichrist is to be sought there, and not among the Jewes Turks & Pagans; is a fallacie from an insufficient division; for al out of the true Church are not Jewes, or Turks, or Pagans, ther is a fourth to make up the mease, even popish Antichristians, and among these is the Man of syn to be found, though with a visar on his face, and a sheepskin on his back. In the true Church he hath somtimes been found raunging as a wolf, but not reigning as a God, which in his own Temple he dooth: wher he is acknowledged Clemēt. in proaem. in glossa. c. In Concil. Laterā. sess. 4. sub Leon. 10. Our Lord God the Pope, and h Thou art an other God on earth; and Extravag. in Ioh. 22. To beleev that our Lord God the Pope might not decree as he hath decreed, it were a matter of heresie; and, Paulus Aemyl. lib. 7. O thou that takest away the synns of the world, have mercy upon us; with other like intollerable blasphemies.
Thirdly they say, Antichrist takes not away wholly the church of God, and every truth and ordinance of the Lord. I answer, neyther did the Divil take away wholly every truth and ordinance of God from among the hethens: but they reteyned many rites of Gods worship received from their fathers,Cum inter, in glo [...]. as before p. 70. is noted. Yet in very deed, so much as in them lay, and us stood with the safetie of their deceitful kingdom, the Divil of old, and Antichrist his son of late, have sought wholly to take away the church & truth of God; and to put lyes in the place. But God hath nourished the woman (his church) in the wildernes, from the presence of the Serpent, Rev. 12.14. And for further answer hereof, let us hear what M. Iohnson himself wrote heretofore against M. Iakob, Answer to M. Iak. p. 137. J would know of yow (sayth he) who are so deep a clerk, how Antichrists church and religion should justly be accounted a mysterie of iniquitie, and truly be sayd to speak lyes in hypocrisie, also privily to bring in damnable heresies, and to have a shew of Godlynes, if they did so absolutely and wholly depart from the faith, and not onely from some points therof &c.
Fourthly they allege Rev. 18.4. Goe out of her my people &c. which words (they say) imply the covenant of God continued among them. I answer, these very words are taken from Jer. 51.45. My people, goe out of the midds of her: where by my people, the Church of Babylon is not [Page 81] meant, but the Israelites, Gods Ier. 50, 6. lost sheep scattred there upon the mountains and hills, whom Ier. 50.17 first the King of Ashur had devoured, & lastly Nebuchadnezar King of Babel had broken their bones, having Ier. 52, 13.14.burned Ierusalem and the Temple with fyre, broken down the citie walls, vers. 9. &c. imprisoned their King in Babylon, captived the Princes & people, and caried the vers. 17. &c. vessels of the Lords house into Babylon: so that now Israel was without Temple, without kingdom, without politie or cōmon wealth of their own; (onely the Lord himself was Ezek. 11, 16. a Sanctuarie or Temple to the faithful there dispersed,) and their holy vessels were caried into the Temple and treasurie Dan. 1.1.2. of Nebuchadnezars God. And these Israelites figuring Gods Rom. 11.4.5.7. elect, are caled out of Babylon, which God would utterly Ier. 51.25, 26, 37, 62. destroy & make desolate for ever. And thus from Antichrists church, which is Rev. 18, 2. & 11, 8. Babylon, Aegypt, & Sodom, are Gods elect caled out: a most evident proof that she is none of Gods church, (what soever she pretendeth,) any more than the idolatrous hethens, whom she matcheth in filthines of whordoms, and multitude of abominations. Gods covenant of grace is not therfore with her at al, for she is appointed 2 Thes. 2.8 12. Rev. 18.8.—21. to damnation: but the elect that obey Gods voice caling them out of her, them he wil receiv into covenant,2. Cor. 6.17.18. he wil be a Father unto them, and they shal be his sonns and daughters; as he hath promised.
Fiftly they add, And so Jsrael is often caled the Lords people, in the time of their Apostasie: 2. King. 9.6. & 13.23. 2. Chron. 30.6.—9. &c· I answer; they prove not the Question: for first the Antichristian church is Rev. 16, 19. & 18, 2. Babylon, and out of vers. 4. her, that is Babylon, are Gods people caled. Now to prove her Gods church, they flee to Israel: wheras the Rev.11, 2.9.18. Gentiles were her true types as Defence against Mr Smyth, p. 14, 15. elswhere I have manifested; though al the wickednes & hypocrisie of Apostate Israel, is also found in this Romish Babel.
2. Neyther yet is their argument for Israel good: to say they are caled the Lords people, therfore they are his true church; I deny the consequent. For things are named in scripture sometime as they have been before, though they be not so stil: as 1. Sā. 30, 5 Abigail is caled the wife of Nabal, though he were then dead, and she maried to David; Mat. 1.6.Solomon was begotten of Vriahs wife, wheras she was then Davids: so Iesus was Mat. 26, 6. in the howse of Simon the Leper, so named because he had been a leper. Thus Israel were caled Gods people, for [Page 82] that he had been their Hos. 2.7. first husband though in their apostasie they were Hos. 1.9. & 2.2. not his people, nor his wife. Secondly they were so caled, in respect of their profession, that they would be so esteemed and named; though in deed they were 2. Chro. 15.3. without the true God. As Mic. 2.7.8 ô thou that art named the howse of Jaakob &c. but he that was yesterday my people, is risen up for an enemye. Thirdly they were caled Gods people in respect of their calling again unto him and his covenant afterward, though for the present they were none of his: as Hos. 2, 18 19. In that day, J wil marrie thee (Israel) unto me for ever, vers. 20. J wil even marry thee unto mee in faith, and thou shalt know the Lord: and vers. 23. J wil have pitty on her that was not pittied, and wil say to them which were not my people, thou art my people, and they shal say, thou art my God. And thus the Gentiles were caled Christs sheep, because they should after be brought into his fold, Joh. 10, 16. & God had much people in Corinth a heathenish citie, Act. 18.10. 1. Cor. 12, 2. and the Iewes to this day are Gods people & beloved, not for their present state which is cursed, but for the promise that they shal hereafter be graffed agayn into Christ. Rom. 11, 11, 20.23, 25, 26. & 9.4. with Jsa. 59, 20, 21. Ezek. 34, 23.—30. Hos. 3, 5. As for this false church and state of Israel (which Hos. 11, 12.compassed the Lord with lyes and with deceyt,) it also may shew vs how to vnderstand that Temple of God forespoken of, wherin Antichrist should sitt as God. For was there any true Temple any where but in Ierusalem? yet when Israel forgat his maker, he Hos. 8.14 builded Temples. These howsoever they pretended 1. King. 12.28. the God that brought them out of Aegypt, yet were in deed built for the worship of 2 Chron. 11.15. Divils, to whom they sacrificed, and Deut. 32.1 [...]. 2 Chr. 13.8.9. not to God. Therfore the Lord by names distinguisheth these two churches, caling Samaria Ezek. 23.4. Aholah, that is, Her own Tabernacle, & Ierusalem Aholibah, that is, My-tabernacle in her: but if Gods tabernacle had been also in Samaria; the difference had not been such. The Idol temples then which Ieroboam and his successors builded, were none of Gods temples, otherweise then by lying pretenses: much less then was Ier. 51.44. Bels temple in Babylon, Gods temple: and if the figure were not his, neyther can the figured thing be his, I mean this spiritual Babylon, the Rev. 17.5. mother of whores, the Rev. 18.2. habitation of Divils. For as Christ surmounteth in grace and holynes, al types & figures that went before of him: so Antichrist surpasseth in wickednes, al the types and figures of him. Therfore the holy Ghost contenteth not himself with one name, but caleth Antichrists [Page 83] church, Rev. 16.19 Babylon, and Rev. 11.8 Sodom, & Aegypt, and where our Lord was crucified, meaning hethenish Rome, by whose policie Christ was kylled, when he was delivered to Mat. 27.2 Pilat the Roman deputie, and to the Mat. 20.19. Gentiles (the Roman Mat. 27, 27.—35. souldjers) to be mocked scourged & crucified. So that look what idolatrie, fornication, persecution and wickednes hath been read of among those hethen peoples, the same may be proved upon the synagogue of Antichrist, (though mixed with profession of the name of Christ, the more easily to deceive:) as whensoever any wil bring them to be compared, shal soon be manifested.
6. But they proceed, and plead, that this clause partake not in her synns, Rev. 18, 4. sheweth what we are to leav and renounce, namely their synns, and not whatsoever is had or reteyned by them. I answer, first the text sayth Goe out of her: meaning this whore, this Babylon, that is, this Church: and so from the Rev. 17.4 golden cup in her hand, as wel as frō the filthy potion that is in it; & frō the Beasts counterfeyt Rev. 13, 11 2. Lambs horns, as wel as from his Lions mouth and Bears pawes. We may not in the truest Church in the world 1. Tim. 5.22. partake with their synns: yet is not every true Church that synneth, Babylon. Secondly, she being in this forlorn estate, she is but a lump of syn, 2. Thes. 2.3. a man of syn, a child of perdition: the Rev. 13, 11 Beast is not one person, but the whole Dā. 7.23 kingdom: & M. Iohnson himself hath acknowledged more then once, Treat. of the Minist. against. M. Hilders. p. 7. Apolog. p. 109. that the man of syn, is the false Church (& religion) of Antichrist, compared to the body of a man, and consisting of all the parts togither. Now to the defiled and unbeleeving, Tit. 1.15. nothing is pure; their Prov. 15.8. sacrifices are abominable, their prayers are turned Ps. 109, 7. to syn. We acknowledg therfore no good or holy thing in Antichrists synagogue, as touching her use of it. Thirdly we renounce not any good thing, because that harlot dooth chalenge & abuse it: but we practise Gods ordinances as he hath cōmanded, condemning utterly the profanation of them by Antichrist.
7. They further allege, that the Church of Rome was at the first set in the way of God: since which time she is fallen into great apostasie as Jsrael did: in which estate she hath kept sundry truthes and ordinances of God, as Israel also did. Which causeth a twofold consideration of her estate, 1. in respect of the ordinances of God still reteyned among them, 2. and of the mixture of their own abominations. Jn regard of the one to acknowledge the truth and church of God there; in regard of the other to observ their apostasie, and confusion against [Page 84] Antichrist: and for this mixture, to separate from them, and to practise every ordinance of God, which was and is in that church: leaving onely their corruptions least we fal into Anabaptistrie and other evils. I answer, they doo but roll the first stone, saying the same things; comparing Antichrists church with Israel, wheras the holy Ghost compareth it with the Revel. 11.2.8. & 17.5. gentiles, even the most vile, the Sodomites, Aegyptians, Babylonians, and hethen Romans, as before I have shewed. In all which nations, there were many truthes & ordināces of God reteyned & abused; which truthes made them no true Church, unless we wil say, al the world was Gods true Church. But I wil folow their particulars. The Church of Rome (they say) was at first set in the way of God: I answer, ther was Rom. 1.7. at Rome such a Church in Pauls time; but the Romish Church now, is a Beast since that time sprung out of Rev. 17.8.18. the bottomless pit; a Catholik monster, dispersed (as they feign) through earth, heaven, and purgatorie, as before Pag. 77. I shewed: such a Church Paul never saw, but by the spirit of prophesie 2 Thes. 2. foretold of it. That Church then was Rom. 1.7. & 12.1. Saints, & worshiped God: this Church now is an Rev. 18.2 habitation of Divils, and Rev. 9.20. worshipeth Divils.
Since that time (say they) she is fallen into Apostasie. True, say I, even soon after Pauls time, for then the 2. Thes. 2.7. mysterie of iniquitie did work, and 1 Ioh. 2.18.19. many Antichrists were gone out, whiles the Apostles lived. For which their Apostasie (like Israels) when they would not repent, (as Christ Rev. 2.5.16. threatned some that were new fallen into such synns,) the candlestick (the Church) was removed, the Church of Rome as Paul Rom. 11.20—22. forewarned, for unbeleef was cut off among others: and for a punishment of their Apostasie, God delivered the East Churches into the hands of Mahomet, and the West Churches into the hands of that false-horned Rev. 13.11. beast Antichrist: even as Israel and Iudah of old, for their like synns, were 2 King. 17 & 25. cha. delivered into the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians. And this Paul prophesied, that ther should be 2 Thes. 2.3. a departing frō the faith, before that Man of syn should be disclosed: and because they received not the ver. 10. &c. love of the truth that they might be saved, therfore God would send upon them that Adversarie, with Satans power and strong delusion to beleev lyes, that they might be damned. Thus Mahomet & Antichrist, were Gods 2 plagues, to bring not onely the death of body, but of sowl, upō thē that loved not the truth, [Page 85] but departed frō it. For when the Rev. 8, 8. great mountayne (which is the kingdom of Ier. 51, 25 Babylon, Antichrists monarchie,) burning with the fyre of ambition and strife, was cast into the sea, that is, among Rev. 17.15 Isa. 17, 12. peoples and nations: then the living creatures that were in the third part of the sea so corrupted and bloody, dyed: & Rev. 20, 4 4, 5. lived not agayn for a thowsand yeres, as did the godly which worshiped not the beast. Although therfore we may truely call the state of Mahometisme and Antichristianisme, apostasie: yet we are taught of God, to understand such apostasie as was among the hethens, in Sodom, Aegypt and Babylon; and so Rome is caled, not onely figuratively, (as somtimes the Iewes are caled Isa. 1.10. people of Gomorrah, but Rev. 11.8 spiritually, that is in deed and effectually: for the spirit and life (so to speak) of all their abominations, are in her most powrful and apparant. So their comparison with Israel, falleth too short in mesure: though Israel also when they forsook God and his Church, and builded new Hos. 8.14.Temples were not Gods true Temple or Church, as before is proved. Their cōsideratiō in respect of Gods ordinances to acknowledge the church of God there: is a speculatiō of their own, not of God. For the stealing & abusing Gods ordināces & mixing thē with their own inventiōs, maketh not a people Gods people or Ch:, any more thē a true mās mony in a theefs purse, maketh the theef an honest mā. If it were so, then the hethens when they sacrificed Horat. l. 2 Satyr. 3. swine, were to be condemned▪ but when they sacrificed Nū. 23.1. bullocks and sheep, were to be approved as Gods Church, for they kept Gen. 8.20. Levit. 1. Gods ordinance asvvel as Rome with their sacrifice of the Mass. When they worshiped idols, they were to be condemned; but when they worshiped Act. 17.23. the true God in their ignorant manner, they were to be justified as his people: so when they kept the feasts Sopho [...]l. Electr. Tibull. l. 1. cleg. 3. of new moons, they were to be praised as Gods Church, for it was an ordinance Nū. 28, 11 of his: but when they kept their Bacchanalia, to be disclaimed for heretiks. And what wil this come unto at the last; but to justify the Divil as he is a creature of God, and transformed into an 2 Cor. 11.14. Angel of light; but to condemn him as he is a black Divil, and Apostate from his original. Their fear least they should fall into Anabaptistrie, is before defrayed: but as some mariners to avoid Charybdis have falln into Scylla, so these to shun the shelves of Anabaptistrie, have run their ship upon the rocks of Poperie.
8. Their next double consideration, is about the covenant of God made [Page 86] with his people. For oftē, the people on their part break the covenāt when the Lord doth not so on his part; but stil counts them his people, calls thē to repentāce, folowes them somtime with judgmt, somtime with mercie, Lev. 26, 15— 45. Ezek. 16, 59,—62. Jud. 2.1—20. Thus in Jsrael they fel to Jdolatrie & trāsgressed the covenant on their part, Exo. 32. Jud. 2. & 3. with Ps. 78.56.58. 1. Sam. 7.3, 4. 1 King. 12, 28, 33. & 14.22, 23, 24. with 2. Chron. 12. & 13. & 1. King. 19, 10. Hos. 6.7. & 8, 1. yet the Lord breaks it not on his part, but spareth and destroyeth not, nor presently gives them a byl of divorce, but in his mercy as a loving husband calls them to repentance, sendeth Prophets, calls them stil his people, helps them and casts them not off. Adjoyning also punishments, both for avenging the quarrel of his covenant, and procuring their conversiō. Exo. 33, & 34. &c. Lev. 26, 14, 15—25—42, 44, 45. Jud. 2, 1, &c. Ps. 78. 1. Kin. 13, & 16. & 18. 2. King. 5, 8, 15, 17. Jer. 51.5. Ezek. 16, 59.60 &c. Hoseas, Amos &c. Jn these two divers respects, Jsrael considered in themselves and their idolatrous estate are sayd to be without God, without Preist, without law: to forsake and break the covenant, not to be the Lords wife but an harlot &c. having children of whordoms, and that the Lord is not with Jsrael, or with any of Ephraim, 2. Chrō. 15.3. 1. King. 12, 28.33. & 15, 34. & 16, 13, 26, 31, 33. & 19, 14. Hos. 2, 1,—5. & 5, 3, 4. & 8, 1. & 9, 1. with Psal. 106, 29.39. Ezek. 16. and 23, ch. 2 Chron. 25, 7. But agayn in respect of the Lord and his covenant into which they were received, & which he breaks not on his part, he calls them to repentance, is caled their God, and they the people of the Lord, and their children born to the Lord, and Jsrael not to have been a widow forsaken of God, but the Lord pittied them, & respected them for his covenant with Abraham, and would not cast them off as yet. And thus Jsrael continued long, respected of the Lord notwithstāding her apostasie, Jud. 2, 1. 1. King. 18.36. 2 King. 9, 6. Hos. 4, 6, 12. & 5.4. & 7.10. & 8, 2. & 9, 1. & 14, 1, 2. Amos 7, 15, with Psal. 89, 30.—34. Eze. 16.20.60. Jer. 51, 5. 2. King. 13, 23. Yet in these times, the Prophets taught the people to plead with their mother, & separate themselves. &c. Hos. 2, 1—5. & 4, 12, 14, 15. Amos 4.4, 5. & 5.4.5. Al these are writtē for our learning, & to be applied to the the churches estate in Apostasie since Christ, Rom. 15, 4. 1. Cor. 10.11. I answer, these things are very obscurely and confusedly by them set down: so that the error is couched in darknes. 1. They shew not how the covenant between God and men stood: 2. there is an aequivocation in this word breaking of the covenant [...], which they clear not: thirdly they shuffle togither the estates of Israel when they were one body, & when they were rent in two, [Page 87] 4. so also the churches in Apostasie since Christ, they distinguish not, from the kingdom of Antichrist: but confound Sion (when she synneth,) with Babylon.
1. The covenant between God and men, was alwayes conditional; by the law, if they Rom. 10.5. did his cōmandements, they should live by them; and if they Gal. 3, 10. continued not in all things written in the book of the law to doo them, they were cursed. By the gospel, Ioh. 3.36. he that beleeveth in the son [of God] hath everlasting life, and he that obeyeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God, abideth on him. And all the figurative covenants that Israel had, were also conditional, Levit. 26, Deut. 28. blessings promised to the obedient, and curses to the transgressors.
2. The breaking of the covenant on mans part, is alwayes Levit. 26, 15. by syn: in which sense it cannot be sayd that God ever breaketh covenant at any time. But in an other sense by punishing, and putting from him the rebellious people, in just judgment; we may say God Zach. 11, 10. Psal. 89.39. breaketh or disannulleth the covenant. Whensoever a people by syn forsaketh God, and refuseth his word caling them to repentance: they cannot have themselves, neyther can other men have concerning them any assurance of their salvation, or that they abide in the covenant of his grace. For whosoever abideth in him (as sayth 1. Ioh. 3, 6. the scripture) he synneth not: whosoever synneth, hath not seen him, neyther known him. Be it Deut. 29, 18, 19, 20. man or woman, or familie or tribe, which turn their hart from the Lord, to serve other Gods, though they bless themselves in their harts, saying we shal have peace &c. the Lord wil not be merciful unto them. As for Gods pacience, who presently punisheth not, but somtime forbeareth long; and inviteth them to repentance: this dooth not assure any that they are under his covenant of grace, unless by repentance and faith they turn unto the Lord. The long suffring of God Pet. 3, 20. Gen. 6. abode in the dayes of Noah, 120. yeres, whiles he preached to the old world which perished in the flood: so his bountifulnes to many other peoples should have led them to repentance, Rom. 2, 4, 5. when they after their hardnes and impenitent harts, heaped unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath. And the judgments upon Gods professant people, come often times more speedily, then upon the open infidels. Let us look upon the typical estate of Israel, our 1. Cor. 10 6, 11. ensamples: It was a Exod. 6, 4.5.—8. covenant between God and them, that he would give them the land of Canaan, a figure Heb. 4.1.2.3. &c. of the heavenly inheritance: and he [Page 88] led them through the wildernes, to the borders of the countrye, and sayd, Deut. 1, 20, 21. Loe the land is before yow, goe up and possess it: but they ver. 28, 26 32. were afrayd and would not goe up, through their unbeleef. Then the Lord presently vers. 34.35. was wroth and swore, that not one of those transgressers should see that good land; yea though they after were sory, verse 41. and offred themselves to goe up, yet the Lord ver. 42, 44. forbad them, slew some of them by the sword, and Deut. 2, 1, &c. Heb. 3 17.—19. turned al the rest back to wander and perish in the wildernes▪ Agayn, it was a condition of the Exod. 34, 10, 11. covenant on Gods part, that he would cast out the Amorites, Canaanites &c. from before the Israelites; and on their parts, verse 12, &c. that they should make no compact with the inhabitants of the land &c. But when they brake with him, and rooted not out the people, but agreed with them Iudg. 1.27.28.30.32, 33. for tribute; the Lord also presently brake with them, saying, Iudg. 2.1.2.3. J sayd J wil never break my covenant with yow &c. but ye have not obeyed my voice, wherfore J say also, J wil not cast them out before you; and agayn because verse 20, 21. this people hath transgressed my covenant, therfore wil I no more cast out before them any of the nations; and so they were left as Iosh. 23, 13. a whip on their sides, and thornes in their eyes.
The like may be seen by comparing al other particulars, and those threatings in Levit. 26.15.16. &c. with their histories in the books of the Judges and Kings of Israel: according to that saying of God to Moses, Deut. 31.16, 17. they wil forsake me &c. and J wil forsake them. And as for that which is cited from Levit. 26.45. it was a promise of the Gospel, upon their unfeighned verse 39, 40. repentance; and perteyneth to the Iewes also at this day, as Paul sheweth us Rom. 11. for this rule is general, Pro. 28, 13. he that confesseth and forsaketh his synns, shal have mercie. Although therfore God useth sometime more forbearance of evil men than at other time, and often giveth Rev. 2, 21 space to repent: yet if they repent not, they shal assuredly Luk. 13.3.5. Rom. 2..4, 5. Rev. 2.5. perish, and their boasting of the covenant shal Mat. 7, 22 23. not save them.
3. Touching their application of things to Israel, not putting difference between their state when it was one, and when it was rent asunder: therin also they fayl. Whiles Israel were one, they continued Gods Church: for though they often synned, yet by his word & afflictions he soon brought them to repentance, as is noted, Judg. 2.4, 5. and 3.8, 9.15. and 4.1.2, 3. &c. But when after many other synns, ten tribes fel from the Lord, and rent themselves [Page 89] from the Kingdome of David, and Preisthood of Levi, both which were sacramental types Ier. 33.21 22. of Christ and his Church; when they left the other testimonies of Gods presence, the Temple and Altar at Sion, where God had sayd he would Psal. 132.13.14. dwel for ever; and builded them new Hos. 8.14 11. Temples and Altars to syn, forgetting their maker; when they set up Calves and 2 Chron. 11.15. Divils to worship God by; then presently 1 King. 13.1. &c. God sent his Prophet to them with a denunciation of judgment, which being done, he was to avoid them as Hethens & Publicans; ver. 8.9. not eating or drinking in the city: which because he did (though drawn in by the lye of another Prophet,) the Lord ver. 26. slew him with a Lion. And all that feared God, 2 Chron. 11.13.16. both Preists & people, left the country and went to Iudah: and the rest wer stil Hos. 4.15.17. caled upon by the Prophets to forsake them, as not being Gods Hos. 2.2. wife, that is, his Church: and their estate shewed to be 2 Chron. 15.3. without the true God, and without Preist, and without law: and they were unto God Amos 9.7. as the Aethiopians. Now wheras our Opposites allege, God did not presently cast them off; it is true, in respect of caling them to repentance, and of their dwelling in the land, or, as the scripture saith, 2 King. 14.27. of putting out the name of Jsrael from under heaven: for his covenant was to punish them Lev. 26.16.18.21.24.28.33 by degrees, & at last if they repented not, to scatter them among the Hethens, til their ver. 41.39.40. uncircumcised harts should be humbled, and they rewed their former syn; and then would he ver. 42.45. remember his first covenant, & so receiv them agayn to grace in Christ. And as for not casting them presently out of the land, the Lord dealt with them, as he had before dealt with the Hethen Canaanits which were spared therin for a time, because their wickednes was not yet full, Gen. 15.16. If this patience towards them, wil not prove them a true Church; no more wil Gods like patience towards apostate Israel. And how they in their impenitent estate, 2 King. 17 13.14. &c. hardning their necks dayly more & more, could be sayd to be the true Church of God, (though they cō passed Hos. 11.12. him with lyes,) and in the covenant of his grace unto salvation; I leave for them to judge that are wise in hart. As for these mens double respects, they are not al of them syncere. They would have it said in respect of the Israelites, (and not of the Lord) that they were without God, without Preist, without law, none of his wife, having children of whordoms, and the Lord is not with Jsrael &c. & agayn in respect of the Lord (and not of themselves) that he is caled their [Page 90] God, and they his people, and their children borne to him, and Israel not to have been a widow forsaken &c. I answer, whatsoever was syn, was wholly their own, and whatsoever was grace, was wholly Gods: & this is true in the best Churches in the world. But whatsoever was a reproof and punishment for their syn, respected both Gods justice, and their demerit: and whatsoever acceptation of grace was in them, respected both Gods mercy in Christ, and their Rom. 3.30. faith. If therfore they were in any sence a true Church at that time actually, it must needs be by mutual referēce to the covenāt on both parts, God offring, they Rom. 5.17. taking his grace offred; through his holy Spirit working in them: otherwise it is a mere fiction in religion, to make difference where none is. Now let them shew that they accepted the grace of God, caling them to repentance: we shew the contrary by the Lords own testimonie, who for their unbeleef and stubborn disobedience 2 King. 17.13.14. —22.23. did put them out of his sight in wrath. And if men accept not the grace of God: his caling upon them to repent, makes them no more his Church, then the Hethens Act. 14.15. & 17.30. unto whom he doth the like.
Agayn, it is not sound to say that in respect of themselves onely, it was spoken by the Prophet 2 Chron. 25.7. the Lord is not with Israel, with any of the children of Aephraim. For he there dissuadeth Amaziah from having the army of Israel to help him: his reason is, the Lord is not with Jsrael: this most directly respecteth the Lord and his Hos. 5.6. withdrawing of his presence from that people. Even as Moses sayd, Num. 14.42. Got not up [to warr] for the Lord is not among you: did not the event shew (when they vers. 44.45. fled before their enemies) that is was meant in respect of Gods presence and help now withdrawn from them? Also when it is sayd in other scriptures Iudg. 2.18. the Lord was with the Iudge: and Psal. 118.6. the Lord is with me, I wil not feare: and Mat. 28.20. I am with yow al dayes, & many the like: who ever would dreame that these things could be spoken in respect of the men onely, and not of God and Christ? Finally the Prophets speech to the Iewes, 2 Chron. 15.2. the Lord is with yow, while yow be with him, but if yee forsake him, he wil forsake yow, doth evince manifestly, that it is an evil glosse, when the text sayth the Lord is not with Israel, to turn it by respects, as if nothing were meant but Israel is not with the Lord. So in the other speech 2 Chron. 15.3. Israel hath been without the true God; the words folowing vers. 4. but had he turned to the Lord God of Israel; and sought him, he would have been found of them; these manifest, [Page 91] that it was in respect of Gods forsaking them also, and not onely of their forsaking him.
No better (if it be not worse) is their citing of Hos. 2.2. she is not my wife, that this respected Israel in themselves: be it so, but what foloweth? Hos. 2, 2. neyther am J her husband: and if the former branch respected Israel, then this respecteth the Lord, especially seing he testified by Ieremie, Ier. 3, 8. J cast her away, and gave her a byll of divorcement: unless they wil say this also was not spoken in respect of the Lord. They doo not wel therfore to cite one branch of the text, and concele an other, deceiving the reader. How and in what sense God called them his people, I have shevved p. 81, 82. before: their former state, their present pretense to be the Lords, and the future mercie that they should and yet shal receiv, might wel and did occasion such speeches: but in deed and truth it was as God sayd to them Hos. 1, 9. you are not my people, therfore wil not J be yours. And as for God remembring his covenant, it is true even to this day, for they are Rom. 11.28. beloved for their fathers sakes, and shal agayn have the benefit of their first verse 26, 27. Levit. 26, 45. covenant, and so may stil becaled Gods people, as the Prophets foretelling their return, doo Deut. 32, 43. Isa. 49.13. intitle them: yet I hope our opposites wil not hereupon conclude, that the Iewes now (whiles they continue unrepentant) are Gods true visible church. That of Jsrael and Judah being no widow, Jer. 51.5. is a prophesie of their return out of Babylon, and restoring of their common wealth, as the whole argument there manifesteth. They should repent and seek the Lord Ier. 50.4, 5. with tears, and renew the covenant on their part, and God verse 20. vvould forgive them al their synns. This therfore is not spoken in respect of God onely, but of them also turning by repentance to the Lord in their affliction, and the Lord turning to them; as the first performance of this prophesie shevveth, Nehem. 9.1.2.—32.—38. Moreover, it proveth not that Israel vvas alvvayes before, Gods vvife or Church; for it is playn to the contrary, Hos. 2.2. and she vvas divorced, Ier. 3, 8. & dead in syn, Hos. 13.1. but now vvas to be fulfilled in such as returned, that vvhich vvas prophesied, on Israels part, Hos. 2, 7. J wil goe and return to my first husband; and on Gods part, verse 20. J wil marry the unto me in faith.
Their applying of these things to our times, is not in all points aright. For though in this, Antichrists synagogue and Israels doo agree, that neyther be Gods true Church: yet the perfect type of [Page 92] Rome, as God describeth it, is Rev. 17, 18 Babylon: and vve should not be vviser then God. And if they cannot prove Babylon then to be Gods church, which was not more deep in syn thē now Antichrist is, and which citie had Psal. 87, 4 promise and 1. Pet. 5, 13 performance of mercie in Christ at the end: they shal never prove this synagogue of Satan to be Gods true Church, which hath no promise of recovery or mercie, but Num. 24 24. Rev. 14 9, 10. & 18 8.21. & 19, 20, 21. 2. Th 2.8.12. prophesies and threatnings of assured destruction.
They proceed further to a double regard of apostate Churches, in cō parison with other peoples; as Jsrael compared with the Philistims &c, is caled and counted Gods people, having the onely true God for their God: 2 King. 5, 8.15.17. & 9, 6. but being compared with Judah, is an harlot and not Gods wife. Hos. 2.2.5. & 4.15. &c. So the church of Rome in apostasie, compared with Iewes, Turks & Pagans, ought to be counted Christians, and the Temple of God, the Church of God brought to the faith of Christ, 2 Thes. 2.4. with Ezek. 43, 7, 8. Zach. 6, 12, 13. Eph. 2, 11. — 13, 19, 21. 2. Cor. 6, 16. Rev. 11.19. but agayn cōmpared with the ancient church of Rome, & such as now are faithful churches, she is to be esteemed the great whore, beleeving & speaking lyes in hypocrisie &c, Rev. 17.1.5. 1. Tim. 4, 1, 2, 3. 2 Thes. 2, 3, 10, 12. And thus in a double consideration, it may be sayd of Rome in one respect, ther is a true Church there, and in an other respect ther is a false church there.
I answer; first to the double regard of Israel; if they mean that onely in respect of Iudah, and not also of God, Israel was caled none of Gods wife; it is untrue, and before by me disproved. If they mean, that not onely in respect of God, but of Iudah also, Israel was an harlot, and not Gods wife, it is true, and maketh so much the more against their estate, but nothing at al, (no not in shew) for it. And how Iudah respected Israel, (besides al former testimonies of the Prophets alleged,) their continual warrs both with word and sword do manifest, as when after 2. Chron. 13, 4, 5.—12 reproof of their faling from God, they kylled verse 17.18. five hundred thousand chosen men of Israel at one battel: besides their continual combates after, excepting some few Kings which made amitie with them, for which they were reproved: as the Prophet sayd to K. Iehoshaphat for joyning with the King of Israel against the Aramites, 2 Chron. 19, 2. wouldest thou help the wicked, and love thē that hate the Lord? therfore for this thing, wrath from the Lord is upon thee. But had the Israelites been their brethren in the faith, and covenant of Christ, Iudah had 1. Ioh. 3, 10, 11, 12. synned greatly in so destroying them. [Page 93] And how the Iewes afterward also esteemed of their faith and godlynes, their Rabbines testimonies in the Talmud sheweth, where they say of the ten tribes, Talmud Babyl. in Sanhedrin, c. 11. Aein lahem chelek leolam haba: that is, they have no part in the world to come, in life eternal; and that the Lord did put them from upon their land in this world, and wil send them into an other land in the world to come. Did they now (may we think) esteem them within the holy covenant, and to have true circumcision, Rō. 4, 11. the seal of the righteousness which is by faith? As for comparison with the Philistims and other hethens, it is true they were caled the people of the Lord; because they never renounced their God in name and professedly: but pretended the contrary. Yet seeing they did but compass the Lord with Hos. 11.12 lyes and deceyt: this their vayn profession did nought avayl them, with God or his Saincts. And so at this day, the Iewes professing the God of Israel, and praying to him, & reading his lavv and prophets dayly in their synagogues, may be caled Gods people in cōparison of pagans vvhich knovv not God or his scriptures at al: but vvorship the Sun and Moon, and some of them the Divil, by open profession. Yet none I think vvil say, that the Ievves novv being vvthout Christ, are actually in the covenant of grace. Agayn, the Turks that profess Alcoran, azoar. 2, 3. &c. One immutable, living, true, most wise & high God; and doo acknovvledge Christ Azoar. 67 to be sent of God with his gospel, and call him Azo. 31. Ruchella, that is the Breath (or Spirit) of God: these men in comparison of Julian the Apostata, and other like vvretches, and Atheists, may be caled the people of God, and Christians: though in deed, they be farr from being eyther.
Secondly for their double regard of the Church of Rome, I say as before of Israel, that in comparison vvith Turks and paynims, they may be caled Christians, but are in deed false Christians, such as in name and shevv pretend to be Christs; but are Antichrists & vvorship Rev. 13, 3, 4. the Dragon, and the Beast, and him that 2 Thes. 2, 4. fitteth as God in the Temple of God; so to them the scripture may be applied, Rev. 2, 9. & 3, 9. they say they are IewesChristians and are not, but doo lye, and are the synagogue of Satan: and if this vvill help them, let them make the most of it. It is sufficient for the matter in hand, if in respect of Christ and his covenant, and in comparison vvith Christs true Churches, that synagogue be condemned, as the Rev. 17.1. great whore, the beast that Rev. 17.8 & 19, 20. came up from, and shal again goe down into the bottomless pit. vertheless (but that comparisons are odious) it might easily be proved, [Page 94] that though Antichrists Church pretend to be Christs, & so in name is better than Turks and Pagans: yet in deed, those miscreants are in some things to be justified, in comparison of them. For Iewes and Turks, are not so gross as to worship Offic. B. Mariae. ref. the Queen of heaven, and Images of Wood and of stone, as Bellarm. de imagin. l. 2. c. 21- doo the Antichristians.
The Iewes are not so vayn as to pray to Abraham and the Prophets, though they be in deed saynts in heaven: wheras the popish Church prayeth dayly Offic. B. Mariae. in Litan. to S. Nicolas, S. Martin, S. Sylvester. S. Benedict, S. Dommik, S. Antonie, and all other their own canonized and deified Saincts, of whom they know not but many may be Divils in hel. And Bp. Bale observeth, that Engl. Votaries; first book. Pref. they have doon as their old predecessors the idolatrous preists did by the ancient Romās, they have set us up a sort of lecherous Gods to be worshiped in our temples, to be our advocats, and to help us in our needs. Yea the Hethens would marvel (as Tullie De nat. Deor. l. 3. telleth us) that any should be so mad, as to beleeve that that thing which he eateth is his God: yet Antichristians beleev that they eat their God and maker, when they eat their blasphemous Sacrament of the altar, which before they eat, they Concil. Trident. sess. 13. c. 5. worship with divine honour. At Canterburie D. Fulk. answ. to a counterf. Catholik. art. 6. were kept the clowts that Thomas Becket did occupy to wipe of his sweat and to blow his nose on: which were kissed as holy relicks, and thought to be wholsome for sick folks. Was ther ever, may we think, more foolish idolatry, among any paynims? Wherfore they are in many respects worse than the very Hethens: and it is true which a learned man Ant. Sadeel resp. ad profes. fid. Mon. Buld. art. ult. hath sayd, that their Church is like their Transubstantiatiō, accidents without the true and proper subject.
Their allegation of 2 Thes. 2.4. that the Man of syn should sit as God in the Temple of God, is before answered; and is but the misunderstanding of a phrase, that if they would contend, they might as wel prove, the Divil which appeared to the Witch of Endor, was Samuel; because the scripture phrase sayth that Samuel sayd to Saul &c. 1 Sam. 28 14.15 &c. Neyther is Ezek. 43.7.8. fitly joyned with 2 Thes. 2. they should set the type from Bels Temple in Babylon, where Dan. 1.2. the vessels of Gods true Temple were holden captive: or from the Samaritans Temple Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 11. c. 8. builded by Sanballat on moūt Garizim, whither the Apostate and wicked Iewes used to flee. And wheras they cite Zach. 6-12.13. it is direct against them, for it sheweth not that the Branch (Christ) should build the Temple of the [Page 95] Lord, and then leav it for the man of syn to be worshiped there as God; but that Christ himself should also Zach. 6▪13. cary the glorie, and sit and rule upon his throne, and be a Preist upon it; and this we see accomplished in the Christian Church warring against the Beast: for Rev. 11.19, & 15, 5.8. & 16, 1, 2 10. out of the true temple, and from Gods throne there, doe come plagues upon the Beasts throne, and upon al his worshipers; and God contineweth stil in Rev. 7, 15.17. & 14, 1, 2, 3, 4. his temple, which the beast Rev. 13, 6 blasphemeth. And of this temple speaketh Paul in Eph. 2, 11. where the true God dwelleth by his spirit, verse 12. So 2 Cor. 6, 16. confirmeth this, saying; what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? but these would make agrement, which wil have the 2. Thes. 2. Adversarie Zach. 11.17. the idol shepheard, there to sit, where also he is worshipped as God. And in the words next before, what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6, 15. by Belial, we may understand Satan or his eldest son Antichrist, the Hebrue word being taking from 2. Sam. 23.6. where Belial, the company of wicked ones is opposed to Davids howse, the father and type of Christ: & Sibylla prophesying of Antichrist Oracul. Sibyl. l. 3. calleth him Belial, (in the Greek termination Belias). Now that which Paul dooth most vehemently deny, these would affirm, in making such concord, that where Belial sitteth as God, and is so worshipped; there Christ also sitteth & blesseth him and his worshipers, with the one true baptisme, sealing up unto them the forgivenes of synns, and life eternal. For so we have heard it pleaded, that the baptisme which the Antichristians have and use in Rome, is the true, the one baptisme spoken of Eph. 4, 5. How fitly may we put Mr Iohnson here, in mind of his Treat. of the Minist. p. 25. own words cited from a Commenter on Dan. 11.34.35. of the wily whelps that seek how to agree Belial with Christ, Jdols and the true worship in spirit; thrusting the Pope and Christ both togither into one poke.
Wheras they end their divers respects, with a true church there, and a false Church there: they conclude not the question, but closely turn it away. They should prove her, that is the whore, to be Christs true spowse and Church; if so they could. For, there ther may be a true Church, though she be none of it: even as God had Ier. 51, 45. his people in Babylon, and there he was a Ezek. 11, 16. Sanctuarie or Temple unto them: but the Babylonians were not the men: neyther was Bels temple, the Lords. But it may be they mean her self, by there: for presently they prove it Advert. p. 64. as Paul sayd of one and the same womā, she is dead & alive in divers respects, 1. Tim. 5, 6. A fit cōparison: for Paul meaneth that [Page 96] she was alive in this natural life, but dead as touching spiritual life in God: and this is very true in Antichrists synagogue: for Rev. 18.7 she liveth in pleasure, and sayth in hart, J sit being a Queen &c. but as touching life with God, she is Rev. 20.5 dead, and appointed to 2 Thes. 2.12. damnation. We acknowledge therfore with them, that things are often in the scriptures spoken in divers respects, without observing wherof, men shal err infinitely: but it is evil for men to make other respects then God maketh; the scriptures may easily be misapplied; as a litle after, they bring us the respect of Abraham unrighteous in himselfe, but righteous by faith, Rom. 4.3.5. I hope they wil not apply this to that son of perdition, in 2 Thes. 2. for that were a most wicked comparisō. Yet thus they have shuffled togither many scriptures (wherby the simple may be deceived,) for to shew things diversly spokē, which none doubteth off: but how soundly they have proved Antichrists Church to be Christs, let the judicious Reader give setēce. And let al that feare God mind, whither such doctrines wil not beat the path for al licenciousnes. For although the scripture sayth, 1. Ioh. 3.8 & 5.18. he that committeth syn is of the Divil: and, we know that whosoever is borne of God synneth not; but he that is begotten of God, keepeth him self, and that wicked one toucheth him not: notwithstāding, men may be as prophane as Esau, as filthy in life as Sodom, as idolatrous and synful as the Aegyptians and Babylonians, and yet if they wil but cal thē selves Christians, and be outwardly baptised, they may be blamed in words, and separated from by men: but yet justified as Gods true Church, they and their seed in his covenant of grace, & sealed with baptisme, which is to remission of synns: and what need they care for more? Who wil feare his estate, or amend his life, for the doctrine of such men, as pul down with the left hand, & build up with the right? Is not this rather to Ezek. 13.22. strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wickednes, by promising him life? Moreover this acknowledging al that profess Christ and are baptised, to be true Churches having the true baptisme of God: wil necessarily draw unto a general communion with al such societies, wher men think actually no evil is committed, as may fal out oftē in the sermons of Friers, Iesuits, and other false Prophets; for with true visible Churches and members of Christ, who may not communicate, so it be not in euil? And thus Christians may come to that vanity & cōfusiō vvhich was among the Hethens, of whom an [Page 97] ancient Doctor August. de ver. rel. c. 1. noteth, that though they had infinite and contrary opinions about the Gods and their religion: yet al of them kept communion togither in their Temples and sacrifices.
Wheras Mr. Ioh. Advert. p. 65. referreth us to his first writings, in answer to M. Iacob, pag. 7. & 13. and 47. as having then written somwhat tending this way, which now he pleads for: the Reader may see (by comparing them) how farr they differ. There, touching England, Pag. 7. he distinguisheth between their Church estate, in respect wherof he is perswaded they cannot be judged true Christians, and the personal estate of some considered apart from their Church constitution, that they may wel be thought in regard of Gods election to be heyrs of salvation, and in that respect true Christians: so in pag. 13. & 47. touching the Church of Rome, and some Gods elect in it. Although in pag. 146 he is perswaded, whosoever lives & dyes a Papist and member of that Church of Antichrist, in the knowledge, profession, and maintenance of that religion in the parts therof, can not of us be esteemed to live and dye in the estate of salvation. Now what is that to his presēt plea, for the Church & baptisme of Rome, but rather the contrary. And for us, we never disputed with any touching Gods elect, which we leave unto himself who onely 2 Tim. 2.19. knovveth those that are his. We deny not but ther may be of the elect in al false Churches: even as Satan hath his reprobates in the true Churches. I hold it presumption for any to limit God, by how smal means, or mesure of faith and knovvledge he vvil save a man. Who dares deny but God had many elect among the Hethens, after he had separated Israel from them? Yea God expresly sayd, vven he made Israel his peculiar people, that yet Exod. 19.5. al the earth was his, vvhich are the vvords of the covenant Ezek. 16.8. generally. Wherfore vve leave Gods secret counsels to himself as Deut. 29.29. he vvilleth us; and doe consider onely the visible state of Churches, by the rules of Gods Lavv and promises. Finally in that very book vvhich he mentioneth, hovv sharply In the preface, sect. 7. doth M. Iohns. inveigh against his opposers, and against M. Hooker (that pleaded for the Church of Rome because of some truthes there reteyned;) & saith, that what by the Prelats and their Proctours on the one hand, and the Pharis [...]ical dawbing reformists on the other, all may justly fear, least the end of that Church wilbe to look back not onely in part, but even wholly to the Romish Egipt and Sodom, and to wollow agayn in the same myre, from which they would seem al this time to have been washed. When the Prelats and [Page 68] Reformists shal see what the same man now writeth himself, for that Romish Egypt: what wil they say, but that even he also is come to dawb with them for company; and fear a further fall.
Of their judgment of the Church of Rome: translated out of M. Iunius.
To countenance their cause the more, they set it out with the name and judgment of a learned man, now deceassed. Against whō themselves wrote Letters between M. Iun. & the exil. English Ch. at Amsterdam anno 1602. heretofore; when they would have been loath to stand to his judgment. But what wil not men doo, for help in time of need? The thing borrowed from him is in deed his own judgment, rather then proof of argument: I shal therfore the more breifly touch it, yet not medling with the author (who I hope is at rest in the Lord) but with these his translators.
Advert. pag. 100. The Church of Rome (wherof they treat) is properly (they say) the company which is at Rome, as Paul wrote Rom. 1. abusively, it is al the Churches on earth cleaving to it and the doctrine & constitution therof. They treat of the first, but would have men by proportion understand the same of the later. I answer; A Church ther was at Rome in Pauls time, Rom. 1 7.8. beloved of God, caled Saints, whose faith was published through the whole world. A Church (or peece rather of a Church) ther is at Rome now, 2 Thes. 2.4.8.11.12. loathed of God, caled Rev. 18. [...].3. & 16.14. Divils: whose whordoms & abominations are famous through al the earth. In deed and truth ther is a great Citie spiritually caled Sodom, & Aegypt and Babylon, Rev. 11.8. & 16.19. dispersed over the world under the name of a Christian Catholik Church, whose cheif place & throne is Rev. 17.18. Rome. As for the congregation of Saints that was there in Pauls time, it is gone long since, and the 2 Thes. 2. Man of syn with his worshipers, come in the place. Between these two, ther is no just proportion: for what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6.15.
The Church of Rome considered as a subiect, (they say) hath 2. parts, Pastours and the flock of Christ, for which Church th'Apostle of old gave thanks to God, Rom. 1, 8. Neyther doo we deny this subiect to be at Rome evē at this day, because we trust ther is God caling, persons caled, & the caling it self yet in her, which togither in one, giveth being to a Church. I answer, First, I deny that God is there caling as in his Church, but the man of syn sitts there as God, calling all to worship him, and his calling [Page 99] is by the working of Satan, and in al deceivablenes of unrighteousnes among them that perish: and the persons caled, are deluded to beleev lyes. 2 Thes. 2.9, 10, 11. Al these togither, give being to Antichrists church, but not to Christs. And we are sure God caleth out of her, such as shal be saved, Rev. 18, 4. Their Rev. 9, 1, 2 3. &c. starr (or Bishop) is long since fallen from heaven: and in sted of Peters keyes, he received the key of the bottomless pit, which he opened, and brought up a smoke of heresies, and darkned all truth and means therof, and sent abroad his clergie the Locusts to sting and poyson mens souls: by calling them from God, to Rev. 9, 20 worship Divils: And these things Mr Iunius himself, hath In annot on Rev. 9. applied to the popish hierarchie.
Touching the papacie, (say they) or papal hierarchie caled ecclesiastical, we say not that it is the church properly so caled, but an accident growing to the church, and which covertly worketh against the life and health of the church. For the papacie is an order, humane and naught; the church is an assembly divine, &c. And after they say, pag. 105. The papacie is in the church as the order of apostasie in the howse of God 2 Thes. 2. the man of syn sitteth in the temple of God, with his whole order or rank of Apostates: and the Temple of God consisteth not in that order and number of Apostates, which is a thing most strange and furthest off. And again, the papacie is a poyson in the Church, which must needs be vomitted out if it wilbe preserved, or ells the Church wil be extinguished by it, if it suffer that poyson to prevayl and possess all the veyns of the body. I answer, true it is, and I agree with them, that the rank of Apostates, is farr from being Gods temple: wherupon I assume, the whole popish church, preists and people are a rank of Apostats; because they worship Rev. 13, 4. & 14, 9, 10. the Beast, who sheweth himself there for God, where the Pope is acknowledged to be Concil. Lateran. Sess. 6. the Lion of the tribe of Iudah, the root of David, the Saviour and deliverer: they worship Divils and Idols of silver and gold, Rev. 9.20. and their beleef is in lyes 2 Thes. 2.11, 12. therfore the whole popish Church being a ranck of Apostates, is a Temple of Antichrist, but not of Christ. Secondly, (to take that which they grant,) the papal Hierarchie ecclesiastical, if it be no part of the body of the Church, but an accident, a poyson, a gangrene, an vlcer eating the body: what shal we think of al the actions of that ecclesiastical hierarchie, their ministration of sacraments, their making of ministers, and the whole Church administration, by that rank of Apostates, they cannot possibly be the actions of the body, of the Church, neyther of Christ. Can a scab or [Page 100] gangrene perform any action of a natural body or member? And now what is become of their true baptisme, and ordination of Ministers before pleaded for? these wil be but as the operation of the poison or fretting of the gangrene, for they that did them, being the popish ecclesiastical hierarchie, were no parts of the Church, but accidents, as the gangrene or pocks upon the whores body, which consume life and grace, but give none at al. Thirdly, seing the popish ecclesiastical hierarchie, (which Concil. Trid. sess. 23. can. 6. consisteth of Bishops, Preists & Ministers,) are the poison and botches in the body of the Church, and no parts of the same: how dooth God cal in that Church, as before they reasoned? For his ministerie is not among them; as for his word, the people have it not so much as to read; and the service of their Gods, is in a tongue that they understand not: what now is the meanes of their caling? Fourthly, compare this with their former plea for the Eldership and Ministerie, whē they could Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 24. not find the Church to be caled the body of Christ, howse, city, or Kingdom, unless it had officers &c. Now for Rome they wil have it the body of Christ, howse & Temple of God, ministring true baptisme, &c. and yet the ecclesiastical hierarchie are no parts or members, but scabs on the body. But the truth is, these Aegyptian boyles, the hierarchie, ar the chiefest parts of the body of that Antichrist: which in some respect may be likened to the Image that Nebuchadnezar saw, Dan. 2.31. &c. The Pope with his triple crown, who is proclaymed for a Lib. Benedicti de Benedictis, printed at Bononia an. 1608. Vice-God, the inuincible Monarch of the Christian common wealth, and vehement conserver Pontificiae omnipotentiae. of the popish omnipotencie: he is the [...]ead of Gold. The Cardinals and prelats are next him as breast & arms of silver; the other belly [...]God Clergie, is the strong brazen paunch, and the Lay people, are as the legs and feet of yron and clay, which cary and bear up the bulk: and the Rev. 16.13.14. 2 Thes. 2.9. unclean Spirit of Satan giveth life and effectual operation to this Beast. For to be a member of this their body and Church, the papists themselves Bellar. de eccles. l. 3. c. 2. profess that ther is not any inward vertue required: so then ther is no need of the spirit of God, to joyn these limms of the Beast togither.
But they proceed and say, that Advert. pag. 106. On Gods behalf it is altogither a Church, whersoever ther is found a company caled of God with his caling by the spirit and the holy scripture, and the ministery of persons ordeyned for holy things and divine actions. And a little after, pag. 108. After this maner doo we esteem of the Church in which the papacy is, God caleth her with his caling [Page 101] by his spirit and word, and publik record of that holy mariage, the scripture, & the ministerie and things & holy actions, which before we have breifly reckned up. I answer; if mens eyes did not dazel with looking on Rev. 17, 4.the bewtie of the harlot, I marvel how they could so esteem of that Church, which hath for her hierarchie (as even now they confessed) a rank of Apostates, no members but ulcers of the body. And are they now with another breath, become an holy ministerie of God? Most strange it is that men should publish their own esteemings, without any word of God to warrant them. But let us bring them to the trial. They say, God caleth her by his spirit and word: but Paul sayth, God shal send them strong delusion that they should beleev lyes, 2 Thes. 2.11. and this we see verifyed, by the manifold heresies, idolatries, blasphemies wherewith the whole body of that Church is poysoned. They say God caleth her with his spirit: the Apostle sayth, strong is the Lord God which will condemn her, Rev. 18, 8. and with the spirit of his mouth, he wil consume that lawless one, 2. Thes. 2, 8. And wheras they cal the scripture, the publik record of that holy mariage between God & her: the scripture shewes no such mariage, but dooth defye her as an Rev. 17.1 harlot: where is the record that Christ was ever maried to the Rev. 17, 8 Beast that came up from the bottomless pit? If her having the book of holy scripture in an unknown tongue, wickedly abused to mainteyn her whordoms and abominations, & subjected to the interpretation of her so caled, Entrav. in Ioan. 22, c. cū inter in glossa. Lord God the Pope, be a record of that holy mariage; the Iewes which have Moses and the Prophets red and expounded in their mother tongue, have better records; and so they, and all heretical assemblies in the world, among whom the Bible is, must be judged Gods true Churches. Let us add hereunto the testimonie of men, and touching our own county. D. Fulk answereth the Papists thus, Answer to a counterfeyt catholik. art. 21. you taught the people nothing ells but to pronounce and that ful ylfavouredly like popingeyes, certain Latin words which they understood no more then stocks or stones. So that the people had no instruction from you, no not of the name of God in many places, but that they received by vncertayn talk of their parents, as it were from hand to hand. For how many thowsand parishes are here in England, that within these things be printed anno 1577. these 60. yeres would declare that they never heard sermon in their life. As for that they heard of their service, they learned as much of it, as of the ringing of their bells, which was a sound without understanding. These things being so, what caling had the poor seduced people more then among [Page 102] the heathens.
pag. 107. Wee wil make the matter playn (say they) by a similitude from Ier. 3. A wife being filthy with adulteries, if her husband wil pardon her, and consent to receiv her, she abideth stil his wife &c. So a church overflowing with adulteries &c. I answer, God (if it were granted that he is the husband of this whore,) hath promised her no pardon, but delivered her to Satan, to be seduced, deluded, damned 2 Thes. 2.9, 11, 12. Secondly I deny that this harlot was ever Christs spouse, otherweise then al the world was, by our first parents Adam and Noah. For this is not she unto whom Paul wrote Rom. 1. but an other of whom he prophesied, 2 Thes. 2. She succeedeth in the same place, as the night succeedeth the day. The Church in Pauls time, came from heaven, Rev. 21.2. and is long since gone to God: this came up from the bottomless pit; Rev. 17, 8. and thither she must return. She is of an other religion, the daughter of a strange God. But they alledge, touching the election (as is sayd of the Jewes, Rom. 11.28.) she is beloved for her fathers sakes. I answer, first then this proveth rather the Iewes at this day a church; for stil they are loved for their fathers sakes: and shalbe called againe, as th'Apostle there sheweth. Secondly, if the Iewes are beloved for their good fathers sakes: then Rome may wel be hated for her evil fathers sakes. For who were her fathers, but the Gentiles, Sodomites and Aegyptians; Rev. 11, 2, 8, 18. not the Rom. 1. saincts in Rome; for she is not of their faith and sanctitie. But you will say, she is the natural posteritie of them. Nay, ther is not so much as likelihood therof, much less any certainty. For besides the bloody persecutions in those times, that did cut off the godly; there were after that, many changes of the Romane state, & great cōmotions, that heavens departed away as a scrol when it is rolled, every mountayn & ile were moved out of their places, Kings, Captayns and all sorts of men sled and hid themselves; Rev. 6, 14, 15, so great were the troubles of those times. And for particulars, Alaricus with his Gothes above a thowsand yeres agoe, did † take, spoyl and burn Rome, in the yere of Christ 414. After that agayn within 44. yeres, Gensericus with his Vandals Blond [...] l. 6 decad. 1. took and spoiled it, and Rome for a time remayned without any inhabitant. A few yeres after, Chron. Carion. l. 3. did Odoacer with an other company, invade Italie and conquer Rome, put the Emperour to flight, made himself King, and did much spoyl. Then Theodoricus and the Ostrogothes took it; and after him agayn [Page 203] Bellisarius with his armie, wann it: But above al, Totilas King of the Gothes, in the yere of our Lord, 546. after all the former invasions, Blond [...] l. 6. decad. 1. did overthrow Rome quite, cast down the walls, burn the howses, and made it so desolate, that there remayned in it neyther man nor woman. These turmoiles in Rome, within the space of a few yeres, being observed, and the possessing of that land by those forreyners the Gothes, who Sabellic [...] En. 8. l. 5. mixed them selves with the people, and degenerated into the name of Jtalians, and other plagues afterwards Blond l. 2. d. 2. Fascic. temp. f. 66. by the Saracens that kylled innumerable sowls in Rome & Italie: these & the like may teach us, how unpossible it is to shew that the present church of Rome, is so much as the natural posteritie of the Saincts in Pauls time: though if they were, yet would it help them no more in this estate, then the Ismaelites & Aedomites which were the natural seed of Abraham. And Adonisedek with his Amorites and Iebusites in Ierusalem, (Josh 10, 1. &c,) may as wel be justified to be Gods true Church, because of Melchisedek King & Preist of God, who with his faithful company dwelled there 5. or 6. hundred yeres before: Gen. 14, 18. &c. as the popish Beast with his Iesuites and marked slaves at this day, may be pleaded for, because of the godly that lived in Rome 15, or 16. hundred yeres agone. And thus their reasons from Israel, are also impertinent to this estate: they might wel serve for the times wherin Iohn lived, when the true Rev. 2, & 3. chapters Churches were many of them apostate: but the Aegyptians and Babylonians are shadowes of our Antichristians, among whom their hethenish abominations are spiritually accomplished. Rev. 11. [...].
But they plead stil, Advert. p. 108. Jn that the Church of Rome hath al the divine things in the scriptures, it is of God & a Church: in that it hath them al corrupt, that is of it self, and it is a corrupt Church. The Church is not taken away by corruption, unless it be total &c. I answer stil they take for granted, that which they should prove; and which I have before again and agayn disproved. It is not properly the old Church of Rome corrupted; but a new church arisen out of the bottomless pit, carying the shew and titles of the old. It is not the woman Rev. 12, 14 fled into the wildernes: but an other woman Rev. 17.1 18. or citie, reigning over the Kings of the earth. The Lamb Christ is not there, as on mount Sion with his 144. thowsand, having his fathers name written on their forheads: Rev. 14, 1. but the Wolf Antichrist with his Mat. 7, 15. Rev. 13, 11. sheeps skyn & [Page 104] lambs horns, is there with his armie of Canaanites as Rev. 16.16. Iudg. 5.19. on moūt Maggedon. At first those Gentiles invaded the courts of Gods tē ple, and trode down the holy citie, Rev. 11.2. as the Babylonians of old dealt with Gods sanctuarie: Ps. 79.1. &c. Ier. 51.1.3. &c. Lam. 1.10. If that army of infidels were Gods true Church: so is the synagogue of Antichristians. And the Hethens in their altars, temples, sacrifices &c. had the divine things of God among them, as wel, if not better, then hath the man of syn and his worshipers, in their sacrifice of the Mass, and other manifold idolatries. The dutie of those that are in the popish Church and see their corruptions, is (they Pag. 111. say) such as of those children that dwel with their adulterous mother: that is, to abhorr her syn, with speech and signe to cal her back from evil, & absteyn themselves from it, and in al things cleav to their father, & betake thē selves into his closet &c. I answer, thus it appeareth, that these our opposites are returned to acknowledge the whore of Rome to be their mother: whom they feign to be as woman which Advert. pag. 105. lyeth in a deadly sort swollen with waters of the dropsie, or with poison, which Pag. 106. had long agoe given up the ghost, if God by the imposition of his grace &c. had not nourished and kept her warm. Now to leav their mother thus on her sick bed, as they have doon M. Iohns. Treat. of the Minist. pag. 60-62. (disclayming al Christian dutie unto her which is due to a true Church in corruption,) is but the part of unnatural children. Whiles God dooth nourish & keep her warm, wil they quite abandon her? let them return and cherish her also, and al her members, and see if ther be any baulm to heal her wounds, and to comfort her. As for us, we have been taught of God, that in respect of him she is dead long agoe in her syns; (Rev. 20.5. with Ephes. 2.1.) having been the Rev. 20.4. & 13.4. marked whore & worshiper of the Beast, from which death she is not risen to live & reign with Christ. Although to this world, she liveth and reigneth in pleasure, til at one day death otherwise also come upon her, & she be burnt with fire, Rev. 18.7.8. And then shal we be so far from mourning at her funeral, as we shal rejoyce Rev. 18.20. with the heavenly multitude, and sing Hallelujah, when God hath given Gen. 19.28. Sodoms judgment on her, and we see her smoke rise up for evermore, Rev. 19, 1.2.3.
Finally, to back M. Iunius judgment, they Advert. Pag. 113. cite Amandus Polanus, & Bart. Keckerman, who sayd that Antichrist shal sit in the temple of God, not Jewish but Christian, &c. and as a rotten apple is an apple [Page 105] but corrupt; so that Church is corrupt &c. I answer, they may I confess cite diverse men, that were mistaken, in judging of that rotten church, which wil help these our opposites nothing, who have seen and acknowledged better, & now goe back. Bernard was a learned man in his time, and is counted a Sainct, and he playnly reproved many Romish abominations, and sayd, Bern. Ep. 125. the beast in the Revelation, which hath a mouth speaking blasphemies, occupieth Peters chaire: yet himself doted overmuch upō the bewty of that harlot, when he wrote thus at an other time to her Leman the Pope, Bernard, de Consid. l. 2. Thou art the great sacrificer, the cheif Preist, thou art Prince of Bishops, heyr of th'Apostles; thou art in primacie Abel, in government Noah, in patriarchship Abraham, in order Melchisedek, in dignity Aaron, in authoritie Moses, in judgship Samuel, in power Peter, in anoynting Christ. It is not therfore to be marveiled at, though wise & godly men be mistaken; for in many things we syn all. Jam. 3, 2. But I have shewed how the scriptures doo judge of this Rev. 18, 23. sorceress; and could also allege many learned mens judgements; but I wil goe no further then our own country. Mr Cartwright speaking of the baptising of children sayth, 1. Reply to D. Whitgift, p. 137. Jf both (parents) be Papists, or condemned heretiks &c. their children cannot be received [to baptisme] because they are not in the covenant &c. And agayn, 2. Reply p. 146. Jf the corruption be such as destroyeth the foundations, as in the Arians which overthrow the person of Christ, as in the Papists which overthrow the office of Christ, they being no Church, ought to have no priviledge of the church. Mr Perkins, writeth thus, Perk. Expos. of the Creed: tit. Church. As for th'Assemblies of Papists, understanding companies of men holding the Pope for their head, and beleeving the doctrine of the council of Trent; in name they ar caled Churches, but in deed they are no true or sound members of the catholik church; for both in their doctrine, & in their worship of God, they rase the very foūdatiō of religiō. And agayn; Ibid. Jt is no more a church in deed, then the carkes [...] of a dead man, that weareth a living mans garment, is a living man, though he look never so like him. And agayn; he hath a treatise and Assertion, that A reprobate may in truth be made partaker of all that is conteyned in the religion of the church of Rome, and a Papist by his religion cannot goe beyond a reprobate: and bringeth 4. arguments for proof hereof, and endeth with this Corolarie, that A man being indued with no more grace then that which he may obteyn by the religion of the Church of Rome, is stil in the state of damnation. D. Fulk, answering the counterfeit Catholik saith Answer to art. 11. Jt is evident that the true [Page 106] Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles times: and telleth the Papist Answer to a [...]t. 20. yow cry the Catholik Church, the Catholik Church, when yow have nothing in deed, but the Synagogue of Sathan. Agayn Ibid. answer to ar. 29. The Church of Antichrist is founded upon 7 hills, Rev. 17. upon the traditions, dreames, fantasies and devises of men &c. Therfore (sayth he) in no wise may she be called the city of God, but Babylon the mother of fornication, Sodom, & Aegypt, where our Lord is dayly crucified in his members. D. Willet answering Bellarmin sayth Synopsis Papismi. Contr. 2. of the Ch. q. 5. part. 2. We deny utterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ, but an Antichristian Church, and an assembly of Heretiks, & enemies to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Agayn he sayth Ibid. Cō tr. 4. q. 10. 2. Thes. 2. he shal sit in the temple of God, that is, the visible Church, that which sometime was the true visible Church, as the Church of Rome, and after should be so tak [...]n, reputed and chalenged, as it is at this day by the Papists &c. He shal sit in the Temple of God, that is, take upon him the name & title of the Church, and yet an adversary unto it. And agayn, Ibid. par. 9. The Turk is out of the Church, and so in truth is the Pope, but yet he challengeth to him and his, the name of the Church. M. Bale Image of both churches; in the pref. compareth the Pope and Turk togither, thus, So glorious are the pretenses of Romish Pope & Mahomet, that they seem unto them which regard not these warnings, the very Angels of light, and their Churches most holy congregations, being very divels, with the very dregs of darknes. The Pope in his Church hath ceremonies without number, none end is there of their babling prayers, their portases, bedes, temples, altars, songs, howrs, bells, images, organs, ornaments, Iewels. lights, oilings, shavings &c. that a man would think they were proctours of paradise. On the other side Mahomet in his Church is plenteous also in holy observations, they wash themselves oft, frequent their temples, pray 5. tymes in the day, they reverently incline, they lye prostrate on the ground, they fervently cal to God, Dan. 7. O [...] colampad. in Daniel. they absteyn from wine, they abhor idols &c. But unto what end this holynes leadeth, the sequel declareth. Daniel maketh these two but one, because they are both of one 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 [Page 107] 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 Confess. art. 38. that al particular congregations are by al VI means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another, in al needful affaires of the Church, as mēbers of one body in the common faith: yet here when differences had arisen about our common faith, and could not amongst our selves be cō 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 Act. 15.2. ordeyned that some should goe up to Ierusalem, unto the Apostles & Elders about the question. And the messengers were vers. 3. sent forth of the Church, and vers. 4. were received by the Church at Ierusalem, & the Apostles and Elders, who ver. 25. came togither with one accord, & after discussing and agreement, wrote to the Church of Antioch, what had vers. 28. &c. seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them. And [Page 108] 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 Deut. 24.1. permitted the bill of divorse, for Mat. 19.8. the hardnes of mens harts; and as Paul spake a thing 1 Cor. 7.6. by permission, not by commandement. For we think those Apostolical practises, Act. 15. to be in sted of commandements unto us, Philip. 3.17. And our Confession noteth it as a dutie, even by al means convenient. By this al may see, how weak a defense they make, for their proceedings.
Their reasons folow; 1. that the other Church & we were in peace togither: & if by this occasiō the peace should be brokē, they should not say, they sēt for thē. I answer, this exceptiō wil lye against al Churches in the world that are at peace: and might have been objected by the contentious at Antiochia; Act. 15. and wil be colour to cut off al use of that practise, and of our former profession. 2. That the Church of Leyden was in the same error with us who desired their help. I answer; this also might the troublers of the Church in Antioch, have objected as colourably against the Church of Ierusalem, Act. 15. & it is a barr to cut of al help from other Churches. Yea if any heresie be raysed by the officers in a Church, contrary to their former faith: they may thus except against al Churches, unless they wil fal into the same errors with them.
3 Thirdly they allege former experience with others. I answer, we never had experiēce of the like: M. Smyth in deed leaving the truth, and broaching his heresie against the translated scripture, would needs publish it in our Church. It is one thing to raise up a new error, as did he: an other thing to mainteyn the ancient faith, as did the Church of Leyden with us. So that which they fourthly allege, is but a pretence that al wil make, be their errors never so new; & they that urged circumcision Act. 15. could plead the anciēt practise in Israel, farr better then these our opposites can doo for the power of their Eldership.
4 Their next exception about a letter written by some to that church, a copy wherof was desired, but not granted &c. is an occasion taken by [Page 109] that accident. But they know, that before that letter was written, they signified their unwillingnes to intreat their help: and now were glad, that they had gotten a show to hold them off. 2. For the Letter mentioned, I did think it was meet they should have sent it, and so I wish they had: though they shewed reasons of their not doing it for the present, but have since that time sent thē a copy.
5. They next object, my own subscribing of those letters to Leyden &c & ask whether I denyed the practise of that article &c. I answer; first I had sundry times signified in publick my mind, that their help should be desired in the end, if we could not agree, but we would first use al means among our selves: & so I never was of their mind, who refused absolutely to desire their help; & this they wel know. Secondly, I subscribed those Letters, because I thought it meet that a copy of the foresayd letter should have been sent, as before I signified. Thirdly for the last letter (which to my remembrance I consented to,) they know I refused to subscribe it, til some words which implied an absolute denyal of requesting their help, were put out and changed. Fourthly, when no means among our selves could end the strife, they know, how I both intreated them to consent they might be sent for: & when they would not, my self went and obteyned their cōming. In deed I was loth to trouble them without urgent cause; & with my brethren now opposite, I sought to nourish peace, & it may be more then I should; which now they thus return upon me: and I therfore shal bear, and make use of it for hereafter.
6. Of their reasoning with them when they came from Leyden, it is not to the point in hand. Yet how unwilling they were even to admit of it, all present then did see: and the Elders of the church of Leyden, as occasion is can testifie. But I forbear to insist upon particulars: which are not so profitable for the readers.
7. Finally they ask why we did not desire the counsel and help of the Dutch & French churches? I answer, first these our opposites with us, had before dealt with them against their errors in this and other points, so farr as we could, and ended with them. What reason had we now to call for them to defend that errour which our whole church had condemned? Secondly, they could not discuss the cōtroversie in our English tongue, to the understanding of our [Page 110] Congregation novv troubled: no nor of al our Elders. Thirdly, these that thus object, did not (to my remembrāce) 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 Advertis. p. 27. pretend more sound and better observations that they could send and spread out against us. Let us bring them to the trial.
Cōfess. art. 10.17.19.20. Counterp. p. 175 [...] 176. Defēse against Mr Smyth. p. 126.127.128. and in other Treatises.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, In their dispute against us: & in Mr Rob. Iustif. p. 217.225. &c. 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 cō troversie was about the Churches power, as we have pag. 10. before manifested. Thirdly, for the people being Kings, we neyther taught nor doo teach otherweise then as we alwayes Confess. art 17. professed; namely that they are a 1. Pet. 2, 9 royal Preisthood, made by Christ unto God, both Rev. 5, 10. 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 Refut. of Giffard. p. 75. every Christian is a Rev. 1, 6. Psal. 149. 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 [Page 111] 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 pag. 27. 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 whol [...] [...]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 [Page 112] 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, 1. Cor. 5.4.5. by the power of the Lord Iesus Christ. This Power he would have the whole Church to vse; but yet would not have the whole Church to become governours, nor to take vpon them government, but the officers onely: by which it appeareth that government, and power, are divers things. I do further adde, what if the whole Eldership should be charged by 2. or 3. witnesses, with heresy, blasphemy, or the like crime, and complaynt thereof be made to the Church? Mr. Iohnson in this his p. 47. Answer cōfesseth that the Church (he would be asked whither womē and childrē or no,) may depose al her officers joyntly, persisting in transgression, though in the same place he mince the matter too small, in saying they may depose, or refuse them, & separate from thē, and againe, refuse them. Wheras to depose, and to separate from, or refuse, are very divers, For 1. to separate from the Eldership requires no power, but libertie, and therfore may be doon by one man, or woman, upon just occasion: so cannot deposition be, upon any occasion, but by the Church: for which deposition of al the officers of the kingdom of Christ, the church; a man would think the power of Christ were needful, and that by it such a judgment should passe out. Besides, the Church in deposing her officers, dooth not separate her self from them, (to speak properly) but them from her. Wel, to take the least libertie he wil give the people. If they may separate from al their officers persisting in transgression, then they must receive the complaynt of sin, which is orderly brought, and by sufficient witnesses, against them, and must examine, and judge the matter. Now if it argue power to receive a complaynt of sin against one brother, and to examine, and judge it, and so to censure him by excōmunication, if ther be cause; dooth it not also argue power to receav a complaynt of sin agaynst all the officers, to examine, and judg it, and so to censure them, as their is cause, by deposition? But what now shall the Elders do accounting themselves innocent, and wrougfully accused, whilst the Church thus examineth things, and judgeth of them? Shall they sur [...]ease their government, and fayl the Church in so great a [...]eed? and would M. Iohnson so practise? or are they not now to do a speciall work of theyr government, not onely in preserving order, but in directing, instructing, and guiding the Church by the wod of God in her whole procedings. By which it appeareth, that judging of sin, and power to suppresse it, is one thing, and government for the right use, and ordering of the same, another thing. The officers which are judged do govern, and the bod [...] of the Church which judgeth them, is [Page 113] governed by them. We may yet further see this difference even in the Lordly governments of this world, and that both in Peace and Warre.
In the civile government of our own land, (then the which none in the world in the right vse of it is more excellent,) when a malefactor comes to be arraigned at the Assises, or Sessions, he is to be tryed by his country, (a competent company, where all cannot possibly passe vpon him) which they cal the Iury, whose power and sentence is of such force, as that the Lord Cheif justice himself, and all the Bench with him cannot proceed agaynst it, eyther for the quitting or cōdemning of the person: and yet the Bench governeth the whole action, and the Iury is by them, according to law, to be governed. I wish the Elders with whō we have to do, would allow the body of the church the like liberty, at their Sitting, as they call it, that is, at their spirituall Sessions: or rather that they would better consider, that they are as Ministers to Num. 16, 9 2. 2 Chrō. 35, 3.2. Co. 4, 5. stand, and serve, and not as Lords to sit, and judge.
Lastly when an army is sent against the Kings and their own enemies, the government is in the Captains, and Officers, but so is not al the power for fighting with, and subduing of their, and their kings enemies. Neyther is all the power of the church, which is an army with banners, in the officers alone, for the the subduing of Christs, and their enemies, sin, and Sathan, though the government be. Thus may the difference plainly be seen betwixt power, and government: in the opening of which I have been the longer,See for this, Iustif. of separation pag. 134 135. because 1. I think it a mayn ground of our controversie. 2. Our opposites do much insult over us, as speaking contradictions, when we yeeld the officers all the goverment, and yet deny thē al the power.) 3. The weaker sort ar much misled, and caried away thorough want of discerning this difference.
I proceed to a second thing, and affirm, that Christ hath not left to the church amōg men onely a ministerial power (which he confusedly calleth government) as he sayth. He hath left the word of God, and gospell in the church, which is lively, and mighty in operation, Heb. 4 12. 2. Cor. 10.4, 5. peircing even to the dividing asunder of the soul, and spirit &c. ruling, and reigning in, and over the very hearts, and lives of men; binding their consciences: and bringing into captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ. I know men can onely minister this power, whither in doctrine, or discipline, as they speak. But it is one thing to say the power is onely ministerial, and another thing, that men can onely minister it. For men may be the ministers onely of that power, which is kingly, and Lordly in it self, and so over men, as this is. So the saints can only minister their kingly power by participatiō of Christs ānoynting, as one speciall grace they have received: of which more hereafter.
Now in laying down the things, wherwith he chargeth me, he alters [Page 114] my words, misinterprets my meaning, and conceals that which I have writtē, and he read, in my book, for the explaning of the same.
And first he sayth I have taught that the people are as Kings one over another; that I advance them one over another, as Kings, and above their governours intitling thē with Kingly, & Lordly power, (that is goverment, as he explaines himself) in the outward policie of the Church.
I doo not in these places, or any other, advance the people one over another, much lesse over their officers, in the outward policy of the Church, that is (as he explains his meaning) in the government of it. I doo every where profess the Officers the governours, and the people the governed by them.
Neyther do I any where affirm, that the people ar Kings, or as kings one over another, as he chargeth me. I say in one place, that the saynts are not Kings for themselves alone, pag 226. but for their brethren also, as they are not Preists onely for themselves, but for their brethren. And in another place,p. 133. that every one of the faithful is a King, not onely to him self, but to every other member, as he is a Preist, and a Prophet &c. Here is a King one for another, and one to another, but not one over another, (much lesse over the officers) for government, in the external policie of the Church. The playn and simple truth then is; whatsoever men eyther mistake of ignorance, or suggest of an evil mind, that we do not cal the saynts Kings in respe [...]t of outward order, and government, as though they were to order, and govern the Church in her publick affaires, which is the work of the Officers: but as they are partakers of Christs kingly anoynting, by his spirit, common to the head, and the members, and so Kings by participation, and indowed with kingly power, for the cōquering and subduing of the power of sin, and Sathan, not onely in themselves, but in their brethren also, by the sword of the spirit, the word of God, which they are to minister unto them, as all other graces in their order.
And this meaning being held, it may safely be taught that they are over one another, that is, to watch one over another, and so as kings to conquer their spirituall enemies one in another mutually. But I wil rather insist vpō mine own words, for, or to one another, as being most fit to shew that cōmuniō of the saints in this grace, as in the rest; which he also in all equity should have done. And thus I will prove this royall cōmunion of the saynts. And for them that make themselves merry herewith,Iob. 21, 3. let them suffer me to speak, and when I have spoken, let them mock on.
And first it must be observed that the place and scriptures which M. Iohnson notes in our Confession to prove Christ the onely King of his Church, prove him as wel, (and that truely) to be the onely Preist & Prophet of his Church. And if notwithstanding his sole prophecie, and preisthood peculiar to him, as the head, the saynts may be Prophets and Preists as members, by cōmunication, they may also be Kings by cōmunication notwithstanding his peculiar imperiall power. And [Page 115] so the scriptures testifie that he hath made vs kings, and preists unto God even his Father, and so our Father.Rev. 1.6 & 5.10.
But it wilbe answered, that Christ hath made vs Kings to resist, subdue, and conquer our spiritual enemies, Sin, Sathan, this world, and our worldly lusts, by Eph. 6, 11, 17. the sword of the spirit, the word of God, and the work of the spirit, in and by the same. I grant it, and therupon conclude, that since Gods people are also by the same weapons, and means to resist and subdue the power of sin in their brethren,II. they are also kings in the same respec [...], unto them.
The saynts are Act. 11, 26 Rom. 14.4, 5. 1. Cor. 12, 27. Christians: and that for, and in respect one of another,III. as members vnder Christ, one of another: and therfore Kings. For to be a Christian for another, is nothing els but by participation of Christs annoynting, to be a Preist, Prophet, and King for another. Ad vnto this, that whatsoever grace any member of the body hath received, it is for the use, and edification of the rest, and so in order to be administred by him as a good disposer of the grace of God. 1. Pet. 4.10 And must this royal grace then, which the saynts have received, find no time nor place for the dispensation of it, vnto others?
When a brother comes to subdue,IIII. and ma [...]e conquest of some spiritual enemy, or sin, appearing in his brother, eyther privately, or publiquely, in his place and order he dooth this as a fellow member, and Christian, and so by one of his three states, and indowments, of preist, prophet, or king (for he hath no office, wherein he administreth:) but by neyther of the two former, therfore by the latter, and as a king, and so made by Christ.
Lastly, the people are by M. Iohnsons own graunt,V. to choose their officers, as also upon just occasion to depose them. And this, as the former, they doo not as Preists, or Prophets, and therfore by their kingly indowment from, and vnder Christ.
And thus much to prove the saynts in their cōmunion (as Preists to offer up the prayers one of another, and Prophets to instruct one another, so also) partakers of the kingly dignity of Christ, as his mē bers, for the suppressing, and conquering of sin appearing, one in another, in that order which Christ hath left. And where do I in al this, as is imputed to me, advance the people, as others do the Prelates, and make them Idols? Do I give them power to prescribe and appoint other formes of Gods worship, offices of Ministery, canons, ceremonies, or holy dayes, then Christ hath prescribed, and appointed? to bind the conscience by urging subscription ex animo, to their own inventions, or to loose conscience by dispensations to sin, as of pluralities, non residencies, and the like? or that one man should set up, and pul down ministers and excommunicate, and absolve both ministers, and people by his sole authority? If another man should thus have charged Mr Iohnsō when he mainteyned the same libertie of the brethren (if nor greater) which I now do, though it may be not under [Page 116] the same terms, he would have pronounced it blasphemy in him. B passing by his terms of provocatiō, and reproach, I come to another exception: which is, that I make the order of saynts superiour unto the order of officers; to wit, in it self, as I there explayne my meaning▪ and not in respect of government, as he traduceth me. I know that he which guideth, ordereth, and directeth another, is in that his art, and work, superiour vnto him that is so guided, ordered, and directed. So is the Pilote in guiding the ship, superiour, and above all the passengers in it, though the King, and his Councell: so is the Physition in ordering the kings body; as is also the meanest guide in leading, and directing him, and his army Royall in unknown places. So are the officers superiour to the Church in their art,Iustific. p. [...]18, 219. or work of government▪ which is the opening and applying of the scriptures to the use, and direction of the Church: but as this is done by them, in an order of service, and not of Lordship, so I judge, and call them inferiour. And so in my book, I make them equall in their persons, as saynts: superiour in the word they minister, and in the place of God: not so in their order of servants, wherin they minister, but inferiour.
pag. 217.My reasons there brought to prove mine affirmation, bycause he here medles not with, I also forbear in this place to confirm; onely a few words of one of them, upon which the next, and last exception dependeth. Which is, that the order of Church-officers is inferiour to the order of the saints, bycause their order is an order of 2. Chron. 35.3. Num. 16.9. Eze. 44.11. 2 Cor. 4, 5. service, and servants unto the saynts the Church. I know Kings may be sayd to serve their people, and so to become their servants, but this is onely in respect of their love towards them, and care for them; but not in respect of their order, which is a Lordship, and Kingship, by which they reign over their people, as their servants, and subjects. The like may be sayd of Christ himself, as that he served his disciples, and became as a servant, &c. And for that it must be considered, that as in the things wherin he did thus serve, and become as a servant, he did in his love make himself inferiour to his disciples, and preferred thē before himself: as in Math. 20, 28. giving his life a ransome for many: in being Luk. 22, 27 as he that serveth at the table wherat his disciples sate, (in which respect he expressly teacheth thē to be greater thē 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,Ioh. 13, 4, 5. and kingship: which if our Ch: [...]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 servāts, me thinks cōmon 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 [Page 117] 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 cōmon reason, and understā ding. Let the servants know, yea though stewards, as are the Church-officers, add so betrusted with the goverment in a special mā ner, that the wife of their Lord, and Mayster, is a degree above thē, 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 Cōmentaries 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 Major in minore. greater (to wit the Church) should glory in the less, (to wit the officers) the Dominus. 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 Domina. Mistress, or dame, a servant, and of servants, Lords. And agayn the foolishnes of the Church is taxed, who when they were Domini. 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 thē. It is therfore great folly if the Dominus. Lord of thinges subject himself to the things &c.
Pareus professor of Heidelberg in his Cōmentaries, upon the same scripture, reproving the churches glorying in Paul, C [...]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. Non convenit Dominū gloriari in servo suo. &c. 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.
The 2 Article objected.
Confess. art. 24.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: thē the most voices must prevayl. But how farr their new doctrine (that the Elders are the Church,) is, both from our former professiō and from equitie, I have before shewed.
The 3 Article.
Coūterp. pag. 177.We wrote heretofore, that the Elders have the reyns of government cōmitted to them: now we are taught that the governmēt 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 [Page 119] 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, Coūterp. pag. 177. in the very same place (though they dissemble it,) we shew the Church (not the Elders onely) to have Christs 1. Cor. 5.4 12, 13. 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,Confess. art. 34, &c. until the Pastors or Teachers were chosē & ordeyned into their office: now it is held by some, that seing al the holy things of God are the churches, & people without officers are a church, therfore they may without officers have the use of the sacraments and al the holy things of God, and consequently may receive in by baptisme, confirm by the Lords supper, cast out by excommunication &c. And in this writing sent unto yow, it may be observed, how they inferr that people without officers may cast out, and therfore may receiv in, ther being one power for both.
I answer; they wrong us, and abuse their readers. 1. There is not to my knowledge (as before I pag. 66. testified) any one man amōg us, that held or holdeth that people without officers may have the use of the sacraments; but we all continue in the same profession that we made before. 2. It is frawd, and abuse of the reader, and injurie to me, when they first speak of receiving in by baptisme, and then allege from my letter, that the people without officers may receiv in: as if they would bear the world in hand, I therfore hold, they may baptise. Wheras first the scripture sheweth that persons uncircū 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 Confess. art. 34. denyed the sacraments in a Church without officers, yet Conf. art. 24. Apol. p. 45.62. professed they had then power to receiv in members. Wherin [Page 120] 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
Confess. art. 21. &c.We had learned, that none may usurp or execute a ministerie, but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers, unto such offices, and in such maner as God hath prescribed in his word: now it is held by some that people out of office may execute al the works & duties of the ministerie, for baptisme, Lords supper, censures &c. And these men in their second exceptiō here write, there is one power for receiving in and casting out, and that people without officers may doo both, as is observed before.
I answer; their frawd and wrongful dealing is also observed before; and here to make their syn the more remarkable, they proclaym it the second time. Of ministring the sacraments, and of receiving in and casting out of members, and against usurping or executing a ministerie without due caling, we hold as alwayes heretofore: they repete the same things, but to their own further blame; for our professed enemies, doo not ordinarily more wrest our words.
The 6. article
Cōfess. art. 1.10.17.18. &c. throughout.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 Act. 15, 9, 11. in Christ, as also to Lev. 5.5. confess his syn and satisfy his Lev. 6, 5. neighbour offended; but withal to bring a trespass offring to [Page 121] 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 Bellar. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 3. 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 Ioh. 18, 36 of this world, neyther medled he with Magistrates power, but left it Rom. 13.1 &c. as it was, authorized of God his Father, and not subordinate to his Mediatorship; as pag. 55. 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 Rev. 20, 6. the Preists of God and of Christ, and Heb. 10, 19. may be bold to enter into the holy place, into the type wherof onely Lev. 16, 2.17. Luk. 1.10 the high Preist under the Law might enter sometimes and the people not at al personally. And in every place we may offer incense unto the name of God, and a pure oblation, Mal. 1.11. and are freed frō those legal prohibitions, Col. 2.20 21. touch not, tast not, handle not, and other worldly rudiments under which Israel in their childs estate were in bondage, [Page 122] Gal 4.3. Therfore the Apostle, which sheweth their estate and ours to be one in substance concerning faith in Christ unto salvation, H [...]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 Mat. 18, 17—20. & 28.20. Act. 11, 2—18. & 15, 22— 28. & 21, 18—22. 1. Cor. 5, 1.— 13. Rev. 2, 29. & 5, 10. 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 S [...] before, pag. 16. Papists, and as before is manifested that these our opposites have doon.
The 7. article
Plea for infants p. 166 167.1 [...]8. Treat. against Anabaptists p. 16. &c. Apol. p. 108. &c. Answ. to Mr Iak. p 17. & [...].7. We held that the baptism of Rome, was as true baptisme, as circū 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, Dis [...]ov. pag. 116. 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 Apol. p. 109. &c. 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) [Page 123] 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 pag. 69. &c. 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 serpēt, 2. King. 18, 4. by burning incense to it: and that the most conscionable in our own nation have so professed, and the Vniversitie of Cambridge printed, M. Perk. Wa [...]ning against Idol. p. 23. 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 Refut. of Giff. p. 65, &c. by Mr Barrow. And Mr Iohnson once professed that Answ. to M. Iakob. in pref. p. 1 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 Apolog. p. 113. 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 judgmēt, 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 [Page 124] 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,Aristot. polit. l. 5. c. 9. 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 1. Cor. 5. teacheth, and governed in all actions, by 1. Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13 17. 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, D. Bilson, perpet. governm. ch. 15. 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. Nazianz. epist. 42. ad Procop. I am minded (sayth he) to shun all assemblies of Bishops, because I never saw a good event in any Council, that [Page 125] did not rather increase then diminish our evils. Their contention & ambitiō, 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 thē once we gave them: as, 1. Because we are willed to observ all things whatsoever Christ cōmanded 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 Act. 20.28 Rō. 12.7.8. 1. Pet. 5. 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.
[Page 126] 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 chā 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 thē 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 al [...]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.
[Page 127]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 frō 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 upō any tollerable cōditions, & 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 midwinter: 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 brethrē: 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 cō 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: whē 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.
[Page 128]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 thē 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 excōmunicated; 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: vvhē vve but oppugned the Elders traditiōs, least they should be advanced above the ordināce 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 [Page 129] 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 cōmunion 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 cōmeth 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, 1 Ioh. 3.20. 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 thē. Yet they cannot deny but it was promised, we [Page 130] 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, Advert. p. 87. 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 cōmunion 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 Luk. 17.1 can not be avoyded but offenses wil come, but woe unto them by whō 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 foūd in thēselves, 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 Mat. 7, 2, 12. 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 [Page 131] 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 repēt, their condemnation shalbe 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 [Page 132] 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 f [...]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 hav [...] d [...]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 writtē, 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 [...]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 cōtroversy, 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 cōming, 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 wēt not, but wrote to the Church and shewed them what the substance of the letter was; desiring by thē 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 cōming, 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 [Page 134] earnestly require of us a coppy of the letter before mētioned, with the names of the persons subscribed unto it. Which though we judged, and still do, an hard, and extream impositiō 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 cōming 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 cōmon 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 cōming 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 infor [...]m [...] our selves vpon them for the delivering of the Churches message, did reprove what we judged evill in them, and that we confesse [Page 135] 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 thē confirmed: alwayes in deed with submissiō 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 once had been onely in consideration: and in their second letter (as also appeareth) they gave us certayn Reasons of their dislike.
Vnto which reasons of theirs we gave no answer (as they both write) before their parting. And the causes were. 1. For that they continued not long togither after they came to our hands. 2. We had upon occasion of the motion made for a double practise, propounded another course (both more fit, and warrantable, as we thought, then that) for the bringing of things first to the Elders, as appears in our letter. Vnto which course though we do not bind our brethren, yet may we safely say (so farr as we remember) that there never came complaynt of sin to the Church, since we were officers, but we took knowledge of it before: eyther by mutual consent on both sides, or at least by the party accused: with whose christian modesty, and wisdom we think it wel sorteth, that being condemned by two, or three brethrē, [Page 136] he should not trouble the Church, or hazzard a publique rebuke upon himself; without counselling with them who ar set over him, and who eyther are, or should be best able to advise him.
Thirdly, and which was the cheif cause, we were without all hope of doing good, when they once misliked the motion, which made it. Whilest they liked it, we had hope, though it were with hard measure to the other, and so did further it, to the utmost of our power: but when they layd it down, we knew all our labour would be lost in endeavoring their second listing of it.
Lastly where Mr Iohnson affirmeth, that at the first treating of the matter, we conceived that those by them dismissed should remayn at Leydē with us, notwithstanding their want of meanes of living, it may wel be as he sayth, though we well remember it not. And therin all men may see, how we were even overcaryed with a vehement desire of peace with them, and amongst themselves, and how farr wee were from being partiall towards them with whom we agreed in the things in controversie. Yea the truth is, we were boldest with thē, both because we would prevent all jealousy in the other, and preserve in them all the interest we could for the common peace: and also because we were wel assured of Mr Ainsworths great moderation, upō whom the rest did much depend.
But howsoever we conceived at the first, it is certayn that both they, and we conceived otherwise in the agreement. And therfore when one amongst them made exception,I. O. that we should not dismisse thē back, which came unto us, to live a distinct congregation in the same city with them, it was presently answered both by Mr Iohnson, and Mr Studley, that that concerned not them, but that they would leave it unto us: though that appeared afterwards to be the onely thing for which they broke off their purpose, and promise. And here the work of Gods providence is to be observed, that they who would have no peace with their brethren abyding in the same city with them, are about to leave it themselves, and to settle their abode els where. Which thing, that it might well come to passe in short time, they were by us put in mind of before hand, if God gave them not agayne to reunite, which by a peaceable parting, might hav been furthered. Which how much better had it been they had admitted of, (all things considered) then, thorough extreme streytnes in themselves (not to medle with the mayn cause) thus to have made their brethren their adversaries, and themselves, yea and us all, a by-word to the whole world?
- Iohn Robinson.
- William Brewster.
[Page 137]This is the record of our brethren of Leyden, touching our troubles. Wheras our opposites object unto us, that we refused to trie if by writing among our selves, we could have come to better accord &c. I answer, first we had by a twelv moneths dispute tried if we could have come to accord; but were further off in the end, then at the beginning Secondly things were brought to that pass, that the practise of their errours was established; the truth in publik doctrines inveighed against; the opposers of their errours, compared to Korah Dathan and Abiram; the Lords supper of a long time not administred among us; occasions sought against sundry persons to cast them out of the Church; peace by us offred, by them refused; peace by them selves propounded and confirmed, and by them agayn broken; open warr proclaymed against us, as against men that refused disobeyed and spake evil of the way and truth of God &c. was this an estate for us to continew in togither, and goe to writing, which would prove we knew not how many moneths or yeres work? For loe to a letter of mine of 3. pages, they have given an answer of 70. and if they continue thus to multiplie, what volumes shal we have in the end: and when shal vve have an end? It is rather to be feared that vve suffred things to depend too long: for vvhen the Apostles found Christians liberty to be indangered, and bondage to be brought upon them, though privily, they gave not place by subjection for an howr, that the truth of the Gospel might continew with them, Gal. 2.4.5. Thirdly it vvas a vvay vvhich they alvvayes mislyked: and in our former troubles, vvhen heretofore M. Smyth and others, having debated their causes in conference, proffered vvritings: then M. Iohnson himself, vvith the rest, vvithstood and refused that course. But novv, that vvhich they blamed in others, they commend in themselves: so partial are they in al things. When they like of a thing, it must be good: vvhen they mislike, it must be evil. We vvish they vvould shevv more sinceritie. And novv, as vve desire the Christian reader, not to be offended at the truth, because of our infirmities who cannot walk in it as we ought; nor to stumble for the troubles and dissentions which Satan rayseth among Gods people: so wee desire these our opposite brethren, to return into the right way, from which they are estrayed, and putting away al love of preeminence, and of their own aberrations, to receiv agayn the love of the truth, and of brotherly concord: that [Page 138] the name of God, be no more evil spoken of by the wicked, and that the harts which ar wounded by these dissentions, may be healed and refreshed. The Lord look upon the afflictions of Sion, wipe away her tears, forgive her iniquities, take away her reproch; restore her joy, and comfort her, according to the dayes that she hath seen evil. Amen.