Animadversion to Cliftons Advertisement

The first point of difference: in the Letter.

1. Whereas we had learned and professed, that Christ hath given the power to receive in or to cut off any member, to the whole body together of every Congregation, and not to any one, or moe members sequestered from the whole: now we have been lately taught, that the Church which Christ sendeth to, for the redress of sins 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 all, that with the Church is the power, the Elders being the Church, have the power, and so not the whole body of the congregation together.

And in the copy which Lawne printed.

The 24. Article [of the Confession of our faith,] (confirmed in our Apology, pag. 60.62.63.) professeth that the power to receive in, or to cut off any member, is given to the whole body together 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 practice, 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. Levite. 20.4.5. & 24. 14. Num. 5▪ 2.3. Deut. 13.9.

The reasons in our Apology are nine, the first referring to proofs of former positions, the other 8, confirmed by sundry arguments doctrines & practices gathered from the Prophetical and Apostolical scriptures.

For answer hereunto, their Advertisement telleth us many things. First of their Treatise published on Mat. 18.17. touching which, I also have spoken before. Neither is this point of the Churches power therein plainly handled, but closely carried: neither is there anything at all said, to take away the other 8. reasons, in our Apology. Let the reader compare the writings, and judge. There be also things formerly written both by others and by them selves, touching this of Mat. 18. and things lately published against M. Bernard about it: to these they give no answer at all, 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 perceive the vanity of our error. And that I myself elsewhere show the word is sometime used for an Assemblie of Elders. I answer; 1. If they will rase the word Church, out of the Bible, as unfit, they may do so in Mat. 18. and in this controversy: or else they must give us leave, to keep wonted known words, which help men to discern the truth of matters. 2. Neither show they any one scripture for the phrase they would have, the Congregation of Elders : neither did I ever show or could see the word Church so to mean in all 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 will not much contend: yet I know their eyes will dazel that look hereby to discern in our doctrine either vanity or error. Albeit I confess these our opposites, have the Papists on their side; for so Card▪ Bellarmine expoundeth this Tel the Church, that is the Prelate, or the Congregation of Prelates ; & Stapleton interpreteth the Church, Mat. 18. to be the Ministers. 3. Thirdly, they observe that the scriptures of the old testament are quoted for our 24. Article, as directly carrying us for this matter to the Church of Israel; which now we would not be brought unto. &c. I answer; the first is true, for the scriptures cited do show that the people were interested in those public actions with their magistrates: and therefore there is no reason that now there ministers should claim 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 still ready to do. But always with observing the differences between the state of the church then & now; which are many, as the Apostles do 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 Israel, was to be performed according to order; and not to weaken but to stablish thhe Elders authority. This we willingly grant: neither ever doubted of. But we observe withal, a deceit which they couch under this name Elders : which usually in the Old Testament, is given to Magistrates ▪ which are also called in respect of their authority Lord's, Princes, Judges, yea and God's, 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 called • 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 authority, or to be as Lord's over God's heritage, or to be called by such stately titles, Mat. 20.25.26. 1. Pet. 5.1. Luk. 22.25.26. They streyn therefore too far, which will proportion the authority and power of the Elders that should stand and minister to the Church (as did the Priests and Levites:) with the authority of the Elders the Magistrates, that late and judged in the gates. 2. The second branch of their observation is, that we must not be strangers from the policy of Israel; Ephe. 2.12. &c. I answer, by polity, they mean not, I hope, the inward faith which Israel had: but the outward order of administering in that Church: otherwise they reason neither properly nor to the question in hand. Yea in this very place the Apostle distinguisheth the polity, from the covenants of promise. And so I deny that we are bound now to keep the polity of Israel; neither doth the Apostle mean any such thing. For he putteth the Ephesians in mind of their estate being paynims, when they were uncircumcised, without Christ, without Israel's polity, without covenāts of promise, without hope, without God. But now in Christ they were united & brought near ; but whereunto, to circumcision ? nay, he saith elsewhere, if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing ? or, to the ordinances of worship in the Temple? nay, for he saith we have an alter, whereof they have no authority to eat, which serv in the tabernacle. Or were they now to go up, as did the Tribes to the earthly Jerusalem, where thrones of judgment were set, thrones for the house of David? nothing so, for Christ was to destroy both City & Sanctuary ; so to force the Jews to an end of their polity. But now the Ephesians were come unto the Father, by one Spirit, and unto Christ, who abrogated through his flesh the hatred, that is, the law of commandments, which stood in ordinances ; and was faithful, as Moses, in all his house: and to be citizens with the Saints and howshold of God ; which are built, not upon Moses polity that is doon away, but upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, that is the doctrine which they taught of Christ and of the ordinances of his Testament, which is a kingdom that cannot be shakē, as was the common-wealth of Israel according to the flesh. Look therefore what polity the Apostles have taught and taken from the Law; or Moses & the Prophets foretold should continue under the Gospel, so much will we retain, the rest we leave to Jews & 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 sinners, and to have power as the Church, in their own hands; let all indifferent men judge: as also what cause they had to conclude that we oppose against Israel, Moses and the Prophets, and to cry out against us as they do, that such is our error, and so great is our transgression and iniquity. But because of the printed copy, they set upon us afresh, with many observations, and questions, and by matters, with longsomnes enough: whereas a few sound arguments, would much better have cleared the controversy, and contented the reader. They observe 1. that the scriptures of the Old Testament are quoted in our Article, as well 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 Israel. 4. That therefore their understanding is according to the ancient faith; and not ours, who would make them strangers from Israel, and would persuade them that Christ's 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 authority in the Common • wealth▪ to Ministers in the Church; which is against Christ's doctrine Mat. 20.25.26. And if they will 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 said to such Jt becomes yow to be mindful of your condition, that yow are not Magistrates but Ministers. 2. It is a main pillar of Popery, to proportion the Church now, in the outward polity to Israel. The Rhemists would have the the see of Rome, in the new law, to be answerable to the chair of Moses. Cardinal Bellarmine maketh his first argument for the Popes judging of controversies, from the Priest & Judge that was appointed in the Law, Deut. 17. And as Moses sat as Prince of the Church, and gave answer to all doubts arising about the Law of God, Exod. 18. so by proportion he will have now in the papacy. And in deed, for show, the papists proportion to have one supreme court above all, to end weighty causes and appeals; more resembleth Israel, then doth these men's 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 prelacy as much as any man's, and whose understanding of Mat. 18.17. these our opposites in some points do now follow,) he confesseth that to reason from the Magistrate to the minister, from the sword to the word, from the law to the Gospel &c. the leap is so great, that cart-ropes will not tie the conclusion to the premisses. D. Whitaker's, D. Junius, and others, refuting the Papists, disallow the reasons drawn from the law, and magistracy of Israel; which these our opposers make their chiefest bulwark. M. Cartwright answering D. Whitgift, saith the argument is not good from civil government to ecclesiastical. When Bellarmine allegeth the civil Monarchies to justify the ecclesiastical: Junius answereth, the example is altogether unlike, of temporal empire and spiritual ministry: between these, there is not, neither ought, neither 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, shall be shaped. For in Israel there were Magistrates in the cities, & Priests and Levites, in the Tabernacle, and Ministers in the Synagogues. Let them show us who now are proportionable to the Magistrates, who to the Priests; and who to the Ministers in the synagogues. The Magistrates also were of sundry sorts, as Elders, Heads, Judges, & Officers. The Judges again differing both in number and power. In all the cities throughout the tribes, were Judges, (which the Jew • doctors call the lesser Sanhedrin or Session, and say it consisted of 23. Judges,) and Officers which they say were weaponed, and executed the Judges sentences. In the chief City Jerusalem were also Judges and Priests, for the weightiest and hard causes: this they called the great Sanhedrin, or Session, and it had 71. Judges, of whom first Moses was chief, and sucsessively, one called Nasi the Prince, next whom they place A • beth di •• , the Father of the judgment hall, besides other officers as two Scribes to write the causes of the condemned & the absolved: Sh • lc •• h •• th din, the Messenger (or Angel) of the Court, even as there was also in other cases Shelia • h • sibbur, the Messenger or Angel of the Church or Congregation, in the synagogues: whereunto it may be thought that in Rev. 2.1. &c. hath allusion. Again they make another court of three, for lesser strifes and money matters▪ called 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 wars, of a Tribe, of a False prophet, of appeals brought &c. Also among the Priests and Levites, there were divers orders and functions, some chief, some inferior, some ministering in the sanctuary by course, some overseers and judges, some Musicians, some Tresurers, some Porters &c. In the synagogues there were always lecturers and preachers of the law and prophets, in every city, and in Jerusalem itself were many synagogues, besides the Temple there. Now they that would proportion their power with Israel, showld show whither they mean all these fore-spokē, or but some. They should tell us to whō the Pastor is proportionable, to whom the Teacher, to whom the ruling Elders. And seeing they will have that rule in Mat. 18. to be as it was in Israel, they should tell us to which of those Synedrions, or Priests, 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 clouds; and know not into what errors we may fall.

5. They refer 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 carry himself, as in Mat. 18.15. &c. he doth the brother offended: & that in both places Christ showeth 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 either 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 far better be understood then, then our opposites may now: his words are clear, but not to the purpose that they cite them. Christ there speaketh not of men judging on earth, but of God's judging in heaven. For men had not power to condemn to hell fire, there spoken of: neither could they by Moses law, condemn a man to death for unadvised anger, as Christ there God would do: neither was every mā, that called his brother Raka, to be brought to the Synedrion at Jerusalem, the lesser courts in the cities, could hear and end such matters. The Jew Doctors say, that such as bring an evil same on their neighbors, were to be judged, by the Court of 3. or by that of the 23. but for the high Synedrion, both they and Moses law show it was for the more weighty and difficult cases. Our savior in Mat. 5. interprets the law otherwise then did the scribes. They said, whosoever killeth shall be culpable of judgment, that is, he should die by God's law: and further then outward actual murder they went not. But Christ showeth 3. kinds of kylling otherwise then with the hand: the least whereof, even unadvised anger, should be punished with death by God; and as it did increase and show itself in evil speeches, so should their punishment be increased in hell: which he setteth down by allusion to the sundry civil judgments in Israel. And so he proceedeth to teach men the true keeping of the law, by love and reconciliation; without which they should be cast into the prison of hell: how ever such sins were not punishable by men. But in Mat. 18. Christ speakketh of judgments on earth, in this life; and that not of the civil punishments by the Magistrates sword; but of binding and loosing by the word of God, to be performed by the Church, that is, (as Paul showeth) the ecclesiastical assembly gathered in Christ's name. Wherefore the church in Mat. 18▪17. is not the Synedrion in Mat. 5.22. as these would have it. Or if it be, then is it meant of the Magistrates, and not of the church ministers, unto whom these would now draw it. For, were the Ministers and preachers of the law in the synagogues; judges in the synedrion? Sheliach Isibbur, Angelus ecclesiae, the messenger of the Congregation, was he the chief of the synedrion, as the Pastor (who they say is Angelus ecclesiae ) is now chief in the Eldership? If Christ must needs speak to the understanding of the Jews, and order his Church like their common wealth; there must be more then one court or Synedrion; and he could not give that to 2. or 3. gathered anywhere in his name, which belonged to the Senate of the Realm.

6. So whereas they say we would persuade them Christ's doctrine in Mat. 18.17. is a new rule which Israel had not : I think it will be good for them to yield unto this persuasion. For the Elders in Israel, to whom they refer us, by Psal. 82. Josh. • 0.4.5.6. Num. 35, 12.24.25. 29. Deut. 19.11.12.16.17. and other like places, being Magistrates, that had power of life and death; if Christ sendeth unto such, the Ministers of the Church, I hope will not intrude into their places. Wherefore either let them acknowledge the New Testament, to have new rules and ordinances: and that the kingdom being changed as well as the Priesthood, there must needs be a change of the law thereof also: or else, let them leave it to the Magistrate, unto whom it belongeth.

Next this, they give us a distinction between the sentence of excommunication, and between the execution thereof. As in Israel, the Elders, & Priests, had a rightful power to give out the sentence of death & of leprosy according to the law, without asking the people's 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. Levite. 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 excommunication according to the law of God, & the people should accordingly put it in execution, by avoiding the excommunicate persons til they repent. I answer; this comparison is faulty many ways. First, it speaketh only of a rightful power, whereas 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 excommunicate. 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 Lord's spiritual, as the other are Lord's temporal; according to the Popish hierarchy? 3. Thirdly it misseth in the proportion of the Priests judging leprosy; for God's law in Lev. 13.2. is, that the suspected person should be brought to Aarō the Priest or to one of his sons the Priests ; and the Priest 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 Priest might judge then, why may not one Minister judge now? Do not the Papists, which allege this very example, and apply it to one Priest: make a fitter proportiō, then they that deny this power unto one, and yet apply it unto many? 4. Fourthly, thus far I grant this proportion, that as every Priest then might according to the law, declare what was leprosy: so every Minister now, may and ought by the law to declare what is syn and heresy; and this though it be without and against the consent of the Church & of all the world. Ezek. 3.17,—21.2. Tim. 4..1.2. Tit. 1.9. But as then, not the priest only, but the children of Israel, put every leper out of the host: so now, not the minister only, but the childrē of Christ, the church, are to put the wicked out frō among them, as the Apostle showeth. 5. Fifthly, if the Elders the Magistrates, might (as these men say) give sentence of death against a man, though without and against the people's 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 cōscented not: and to shape the Ministers power now accordingly, is to make them Lord's, and the Church their subjects and servants: yea the Pope himself never had men in greater slavery. I know, when God's law condemned a man, if it were shown by all or any one of the Judges, or Priests, or Prophets, yea or Israelites; the people should in order have executed him: but oft times the heads of the people judged for rewards, the Princes as Lions, the Judges as Wolves devoured them, the Priests polluted the sanctuary, and wrested the law. And then the people of the land, whose duty also it was to look to open wickedness, were neither to follow the many nor mighty in evil. And that the Judges 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 Naboth's case (though it were a wicked fact,) there was a solemn fast and assembly of the people with the governors: how in Jeremiah's case, he was accused to the Princes and people, made his defense to princes and people, and was acquitted by princes and people. When King Saul sware that Jonathan should die; the people sware the contrary, & saved him from death: when the high priests & scribes would have killed Christ, they feared the people, Luk. 20.19. & 22.2. and the people as well as the rulers, were called before Pilate about Christ's death, Luk. 23.13. and by their voices prevailed, 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, neither is the proportion just, if it were so, neither yet is it manifested that so it was in Israel. 6. Sixthly, the proportion which they here make, is so misshapen; that I marvel wise men would ever bring it forth to the view of the world. For they make the avoiding of the excommunicated person by the people, to be the executing of the sentence of excommunication ; whereas 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 certainly excommunicated, whither the people avoid his company or not. And if they otherwise here understand the word execution ; they do but deceive the reader with an equivocation.

This their other example of the sentence of death, and the execution thereof, will plainly manifest. For Pilate gave sentence of death upon Christ; the souldjers that killed him with nails and spear, they executed the sentence of death, as we commonly speak and understand. Then Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, embaulmed him with myrrh, wound him in a sheet, and laid him in grave: shall we say that these two now were the executioners of Christ; because they carried themselves towards him as towards a dead man? Or if any refrained from touching a dead man that had been hanged, least by him they should be polluted: did they here by execute him? No more do they properly execute the sentence of excommunication, which avoid the company of one excommunicated. 7. But because all the weight of their wrested proportion frō Israel, is couched herein: let us look upon it a little more. In their Treatise on Mat. 18. there they say: in Israel, such as would not hearken to the Priests and Judges, were to die by the hands of the people, Deut. 17. Again they say, delivering to Satan, in 1. Cor. 5. is in stead of death in Israel. Levite. 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: otherwise, how stands the proportion ? But they mean nothing less: for a little after, they tell us, in the Churches excommunication, there is the giving of a sentence judiciarie, which pertaineth 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 keys given by Christ to the Apostles; that the force hereof is such, as thereby a man is not only cast out of that particular Church whereof he was a member, but is cut off & excluded from all churches upon earth: as on the contrary by baptism, we are entered into communion with all Churches of Christ in the world. By these things compared together, we may observe: 1. that the church elders may by their sole authority give judiciarie sentence, that a man shall be excommunicated: answerable to the Magistrates in Israel, that gave sentence a man should be put to death. 2. That the Elders may also by authority 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 do the Elders now challenge by proportion in the Church, that which belonged both to Magistrates and people in the common wealth. But because they fear the people, they shape them this deceitful proportion, that their avoiding the excommunicate person, is the executing (or putting in execution, as they ambiguously speak) of the sentence: answerable to the people's stoning of a malefactor in Israel; how fitly, let all 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 baptized 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 refrained from touching him or no. 2. Again they give no more to the people of that Church whereof he is a member, then to the people of all other churches, that are bound to avoid the excommunicated person, as well as they. 3. Yea they give hereby their people no more power, then the Pope doth to his marked servants; for he also will have the people avoid such as he doth excommunicate : and if this be the boasted right and liberty of the people, they had as much in the greatest bondage of popery, as now when they are carried thus blindfold by propertions. But they tell the people, that if any can except against the Elders proceedings they shall be heard. I answer, First before whom and unto whom, shall 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 complained of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities, there was an higher Court to control unruly Elders, and to help the oppressed. But now 2. or 3. Elders in a Church, bearing themselves upon their forged authority from Mat. 18.17.20. may be lawless; and who shall let them in their proceedings? Secondly, how should the people except, when by these men's doctrine, they are not bound to be present at the hearing and deciding of the controversy: will 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 shall except against the Elders proceedings, (as commonly he will do, for if he acknowledged himself to have sinned, he should not need to be excommunicated:) may the people now require to hear the case debated between the Elders and him? nay, they plead in their Treatise on Math. 18. saying, But where hath the Lord appointed a rule of further proceeding, beyond that of the Elders & governors, for hearing the brethren's causes, and judging between a man and his brother? &c. And again, the Elders also are the Churches officers, &c. so as when they have heard, examined, admonished, and judged according to the word of God, it is to be esteemed as doon by the Lord and the Church &c. Thus let the mā except what he will, the judgm ^t is at an end, the Lo: hath doon it, the Church hath doon it, because the Elders have doon it: and it must be presupposed, that they have doon it according to the word of God, though the man except never so much: and though the scriptures foreshow of judges that were wolves not sparing the flock, and latter days abundantly confirm the same. And thus when a Naboth is condemned by wicked Elders, if any except on his behalf, they will take him in a snare that reproveth in the gate: perhaps he shall hear it said, by what authority do 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 shall except, and can easily bring him within the compass of a contentious person, or an oppugner of government, and cast him likewise out of the Church; that a man sometime were as good take a Lion by the paw, as except against the Elders proceedings.

Next follow their many questions; and other matters imputed unto us: wherein we observe how when arguments fail them for their own cause, they seek to darken the truth, by casting clouds before the readers eyes. 1. First they ask, whither in Israel the Lord abridged the people of their right and liberty &c. I answer, No: but these men that by wrested proportions, give the ministers of the church, the power that Magistrates, Priests and people had in Israel; do abridge the people of their right, as before is manifested.

And for the further clearing of it, seeing there were diverse governors in Israel, as the Priests and Levites in the Temple; the ministers in the synagogues; the Elders or Magistrates at the gates of the cities, and these also divers and of unequal power, as before is shown: I ask of them again, whither now the Eldership of every church, be proportionable in power and government, unto all those governors: and if not unto all, unto which of them?

2. Secondly they ask, whither the people have anymore right and authority in the churches government now, then the people of Israel had in those days. I answer, they should not seek to entangle by ambiguity of terms. First, we give not to the people government, as before I have shown, but a right and power to observe and do all the commandments of Christ, touching his prophetical preistly and kingly office, by the Elders teaching guiding and governing of them in the Lord. 2. The goverm ^t in Israel was diverse, by Magistrates in the gate, by Priests in the sanctuary, by ministers in the synagogues. To the Magistracy, all Christians are to be subject now, as they were then: for it is an human ordinance, tending to civil peace, and concerneth all men whither within the church or without, indifferently. The external Priesthood of Israel, is accomplished in Christ and now abolished, Heb. 7. yet in David's Kingdom, and Levies priesthood, there was a figure also of the kingdom and priesthood that Christ bestoweth on the saints. Who have as much more power and liberty in the Gospel now, than the Jews had; as the heyr when he is of years, hath more then in his childhood; Gal 4.1.2.3. yet always in order, and with submission to the ministerial government of their Leaders. And I ask of these again, whither the Christian Magistrates now, are not to have their voices with the ministers of the church whereof they are, in the admonishing & censuring of sinners ecclesiastically, and in other public questions and controversies of religion.

3. Thirdly they ask, Whether the people of Israel were not Kings and Priests &c. as well 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 communication of their external kingdom and priesthood, 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 priesthood of Christ by them shadowed, the Israelites were Kings and Priests as well as we, but with differences. For Israel's state and ours, are not simply opposed, yet do they differ in manner & degree. They were Kings and Priests as they were Christians, and partakers of the Anoynting, and that is, as they were under the New Testament. But they were not so under it as we are: neither are we so under the Old Testament as were they. They were heirs of the heavenly things, but as children, and so (as Paul saith) under tutors and governors, & in servitude under the rudiments of the world, until the time appointed of the Father, that is until Christ's coming. The scriptures which they quote, do confirm this. For the promise in Exodus 19.5.6. is legal, if they kept God's covenant; as in another place if they did his statutes, they should live by them, which Paul showeth to be a speech of the law, not of the gospel. Now that condition, Israel kept not, neither could: therefore not the law, but Christ hath made us Kings and Priests, Rev. 1.5.6. and until Christ came, Israel was kept under the law, as under a scholemaster, & had an external priesthood, which could give them no perfection, and therefore is abolished, and our state much bettered, as is shown 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 prophesy, (though in their measure they then also fulfilled it,) and the place of Peter confirmeth it. Whereunto we may add the testimony of the Jews Rabbies touching their estate, under that scholemaster of the law. With three crowns (say they) was Israel crowned: with the the crown of the law, and the crown of the priesthood, and the crown of the kingdom. The crown of the priesthood 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 Israel, as it is written, Moses commanded us a law, the inheritance of the congregation of Ja • kob. In that they all had the law to use so freely, & were so restrained frō the kingdom & Priesthood; it argueth their childhood: yet might they see by faith their inheritance in those types: how all Christians should by participation of Christ's anointing, 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 Priests now, by their office of ministry in the Church.

4. Fourthly they ask, whether the Churches power be not a ministerial power only. I answer, the power itself is Christ's; and so royal or kingly: but all that the Church doth, is only to administer that power, under Christ. And I ask of them again, whether they think the Elders have the whole power, which Christ hath given to his Church.

5. Fifthly 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 show how they limit it: for by comparing this question with the former, they seem to put all 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 Christ's commandment, Mat. 20, 25, 26. 1. Pet. 5.3. Secondly the word ministerial is also diversely used: in a special sense, the Officers only are called Ministers ; in a general sense the whole Church are Ministers, and do administer and dispose the manifold graces of God: & the word Cohen, Priest, given to all saints, doth 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 spouse of Christ, in that sense that Paul speaketh, the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14, 32. And I ask of them again, whether the Ministers of the Christian synagogues now, have anymore authority, then had the Ministers in the Jews synagogues, or then they to whom it was said, Serv the Lord your God, & his people Israel. 2. Chron. 35, 3. Ezek. 44.11. But here (before they have our answer) they conclude, that therefore there is no weight in our objections 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 leave it and turn to other matters. Secondly they conclude with an equivocation 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 Jesuits do in this wise conclude also for the Pope. For the power & government which they dispute for, is not absolute, but such (they say) as may be in ministers and stewards, 1. Cor. 4, 1. And that the power which the Pope and prelates execute, should be the Churches power, it is the thing that they would have. So whereas our opposites tell us of the Elders power that in deed it is the Churches ; the papists also tell 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 primacy. And it is (say they) to be ministered by the Officers : but not (say I) by them only; therein is the deceit. The whole Church is a kingdom of Priests, that is of ministers : who are to be guided and governed by their Officers, (called also ministers in more special manner,) for the holy and orderly practice of the power. And thus the Prophets foretold the state of the Christian Church, saying, strangers shall stand and feed your sheep, and the sons of strangers shall be your plowmen and dressers of your vines; but ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord, & men shall say unto you, The Ministers of our God. Where the Officers of the Church are compared to pastors & husbandmen, (as the new testament also confirmeth,) which should be of the converted Gentiles: and the Church itself, is the Lord's priesthood, and his Ministers.

Sixthly they ask, whither we in the Churches government, as the Anabaptists in the sacraments would not make them aliens from the common wealth of Israel, &c. I answer, this was in their fourth observation before, and there is by me answered, I trust without absurdity, or ungodlynes, errors or evils, all which they here insinuate against us, for to fill up their measure. But here again the reason deceiveth the reader, for in stead of common-wealth or polity, they bring in one body, one Lord, one faith of theirs and ours: &c. Ephe. 2. &c. Al this we grant: but the outward polity & government, we deny to be the same, it being changed by Christ both for City & Sanctuary, Dan. 9.26. There was always one Lord & faith of the Church: but not always one polity. The kingdom and priesthood were first executed by one person, as in Melchizedek: afterward these functions were divided, & Kings might not do the Priests work. Also the civil government in Israel was changeable, sometime without a King, sometime with one: yea sometime by hethen Kings, as Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, &c, to whom the Israelites were bound to be subject, but not so in their sacraments: that there 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 Papists would not draw us frō the testament of Christ, (who was faithful as Moses in all his house,) to the Jewish polity now abolished. And let them tell us whether there may be now Archbishops, over other Bishops and Ministers, as in Israel there were Archpreists over other Priests and Levites; or a superior court to hear the appeals from particular synagogues & cities now, as was then: and whether the ministers of the Church, now, may be captayns of politik armies, as Benaiah son of Jehoiada the chief Priest, was general of the field in Joab's room? Such orders have been heretofore in Israel.

Seventhly they ask, why we speak not of ourselves, what we pleaded to be the church spoken of Mat. 18, 17. &c. I answer, because our plea is already set forth in sundry books, as the Discovery, the Re • itation of M. Gifford, the Apology, the Treatise of the Ministry against M. Hildersh the Answer to White &c. And I ask of them again, why they answer not the things already published in so many treatises, but fish for more matter by subtle questions, as if men had nothing ells to do, but answer all things that they write and demand: and to let them range at will, 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 otherwise then as them selves taught heretofore with us. Secondly we alleged many other scriptures and reasons both from the Prophets and Apostles, though it please them to omit those, and cull out these against which they think they have more color to contend. For hereupon they thus argue, 1 If 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 deceive 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 showing what was the people's right then, under the law, and under the Magistrate: which may be more, but cannot be less now under the gospel, where the church ministry, hath not the power of Magistracy over God's heritage. The Apostle applieth many things from Aaron's priesthood to Christ: yet he maketh Christ's priesthood not to be after Aaron's order but Melchisedeks: should men now thus carp at his allegations?

Then they say, those scriptures speak of civil government, which we except about the Elders, but they suppose we will not give to the people civil authority. I answer, first them selves grant that the people have as much right and power now as they had in Israel: but we deny, & they can never prove that the ministers now have as much authority over the people, as had the Princes of Israel: so our reasoning is good, though theirs be naught. Secondly for civil authority as we never challenged it: so neither should it be objected to them, but that they will 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 seeing 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 authority also, as had the Elders in Israel.

Thirdly they say, that by these and the like scriptures it is certain, sinners in Israel were brought before the congregation of Elders. I answer, if they mean Elders only, (as they must if they reason to the matter in hand,) I deny it: and there is no weight in their proof. For, it is also certain that Paul imposed hands on Timothy, 2. Tim. 1.6. but elsewhere it appeareth, others also imposed hands as well as he. 1. Tim. 4.14. So, the Apostles and Elders came together about a controversy, Act. 15.6. but the whole Church came together also, verse 22.23. Titus was left to ordain Elders, Tit. 1.5. but was he to do it, himself alone? The keys were promised to Peter, Mat. 16.19. but were they meant to him only? In Rev. 2.1. John 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 saith in a case of marriage, let her go up to the gate to the Elders: Deut. 25.7.8.9. but the practice of this showeth, 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 all the Congregation ; the people are here meant with the Magistrates, for God then said, let all the congregation stone him ; and all the Congregation brought him without the host and stoned him. Now by M. Johnson's own grant, they whom the Judges condemned, did die 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 priest, and before the Princes, and all the Congregation, this distribution of the persons, together with the place, the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation ; may show that the Elders only were not meant: besides in the same chapter, Joshua being there ordained over the Congregation &c. it cannot with any color be gathered, that the Elders only were the congregation, Num. 27.16.17.19.20. &c. Wherefore when one scripture mentioneth the Elders, Jos. 20.4. and another the Congregation Num 32.12. Jos. 20.6. we should not restrain it to the lesser, but let the scripture have the largest sense, unless apparent reason do urge a restreynt, which is not here, but the contrary. For if they were to die by the hands of the people, conscience required the people, to hear their cause tried also, seeing the law charged everyone, thou shalt not slay the innocent and the righteous : and it was not safe for them to trust their Judges, which so often and so many ways corrupted judgment as all the prophets do complain. It is therefore an evil argument to say, in Israel by one scripture men were sent to the Elders, & by another to the Congregation, therefore it was the congregation of Elders, and not of the people also. For by such wrested reasons, one might prove that the Elders only were bound to keep the passover, because in one place it is said, speak to all the Congregation of Israel, that every man take to him a Lamb, Exod. 12, 3. and in another place it is said, Moses called all the Elders of Israel, saying choose out & take for every of your howsholds a Lamb; Exod. 12, 21. therefore it was meant of the Congregation of Elders, and so the other people were not bound to this service. Again, it was commanded, Exod. 19, 3, 5. tell the children of Israel, if ye will hear my voice and keep my covenant, ye shall be my chief treasure &c. afterwards it is said, Moses called for the Elders of the people, and proposed unto them all these things: shall we now conclude, therefore the covenant was made with the Elders only? Who seeth not the weakness 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 main differences, the one, that Church ministers now, have not such ecclesiastical authority over the people, as is proportionable to the Magistrates authority then: for this is forbidden, Mat. 20, 25. where Christ saith, the rulers of the nations have domination over them, and they that are great exercise authority over them: but it shall 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 were a national Church, & the Magistrates in the gates of Jerusalem, the Priests in the Temple, being for the whole Realm; it could not be that all the people should be present at the daily judgments of the Magistrates, or sacrifices of the Priests. And therefore it was not required so of them; as now it is of us, who are but particular Churches, to be present at all public administration of Christ's kingdom and priesthood. Yea even in their most solemn assemblies, they could not do, as we ar bound to do. For they did eat the passover in their private houses, because all the thousands of Israel could not eat it in one room: but we are bound to eat the passover now (I mean the Lord's supper) in the public Church, and not otherwhere.

Whereas therefore they next except, that the people were 600. thousand men, and would we have them to think that they came together to hear examine and judge the cases of syn &c. I answer, no: neither all the Elders. For I have before shown, there were divers officers, for several causes. And Boaz took but ten of the Elders of Bethlehē to hear his cause. The Elders also did meet by themselves as there was occasion: and so are they to do now. Secondly for this exception of so many thousands in the wilderness, that could not come to hear and judge: they should mind how the same lieth against the execution. When God said of the blasphemer, let all the Congregation stone him : will they say six hundred thousand men came together to do it? yet themselves grant this was to be doon by the people. It was as easy for them to come to hear his cause tried, as to come and stone him: and care of equity taught them to do the first, as well as the last, as before is shown.

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 Jews, Mat. 22.2. &c. I answer; this their reason is insufficient, for I could so except against the exposition almost of any scripture, by showing a diverse use and meaning of the words. When the Apostle proveth Christ's excellency above the Angels, because of his name, the Son of God: the Jews might allege, that the Angels are also called Sonns of God, yea holy men have the like title: but were this a sufficient answer? Well, I will 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 Jews church, as Mat. 11.11 ) but as the prophets tell us of new heavens under the Gospel, so will I distinguish and cal the Jewish church the old heaven, (as that which is shaken and removed,) and the Christian church the new heaven ; of which the Gospel usually speaketh, as Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Mat. 3.2. & 4.17. Now when the disciples asked Jesus, who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? there might be reason of their demand touching the Christian church then to be planted: but to ask such a thing about the Jewish church; I see little reason. They knew already the state of it, and who was chief therein. Secondly Christ's answer leadeth us hereto: for there being great expectation of that Kingdom, and an erroneous persuasion that it should be a glorious worldly state, Christ tells them the contrary, that it was for the converted and humble souls to enter into: that many scandals and offenses should arise herein, both from the world, and from men's corruption in them selves, and from their brethren. Against all which he armeth his disciples, and teacheth the orderly way to redress them. And that his rules should not be despised, he assureth them that their censures executed on earth, shall be ratified in heaven: the ground whereof is his name wherein they should be gathered together, and his presence in the mids of them. And this phrase of Christ's name, leadeth us also evidently 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 whereof, Christ said to his disciples, hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name, Joh. 16, 24. These rules therefore, do most properly serve for the Church since Christ's coming: & therefore he sendeth not his disciples to the Jews synedriōs, much less to the hethen magistrates, for redress of the sins that should arise in his kingdom. But our opposites do except, what is here taught that the Jews should not observe as well as we? should not they be humble, harmless, &c. I answer, that which the gospel teacheth touching faith, repentance, humility &c, the Jews were also bound unto; though these and the like things are otherwise opened and urged now under the gospel, Rom. 16.25.26. but there was to be another form and order of the Christian church, than of the Jewish: and in that respect, Moses polity must give place. Ye▪ they proceed and infer, that the offender if he repent not should be brought to the Congregation of Elders. This I deny in their understanding, who make this to be one with the Synedrion or Council of Magistrates, in Mat. 5.22. (which place I have also treated of before,) and I affirm it to be the Christian Church or Congregation of faithful people, the spouse and bride of Christ, with whom his power is left to judge all sinners within the same; their Elders guiding and governing them in their judgments. For the outward form of the Jewish Church was abolished by Christ; the common wealth of Israel dissolved, and given up to the Romans, whose Caesar they preferred before Christ. The Temple ruinated, the ministry also changed, and the ordinances, though in many things proportionable with Israel: but for Ministers authority 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 practice as these would bring in: but that the same church which came together to the word and sacraments, came also together to judge and cast out obstinate sinners, and were all blamed for the neglect of this duty, as for any other. And for deciding controversies, the Apostles, Elders, and brethren did come together with one accord. And such order continued in Churches some years after the Apostles, for Tertullian relateth the manner of Christian assemblies in his time, how they came together 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 showeth how with him men's causes were handled not only before the Elders but the whole multitude : without whose consent also, nothing was doon.

Next followeth their exception about women and children ; asking if they should in a controversy 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 virtue 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 omit what heretofore we answered them, when they fished about this matter: namely that the whole church of men women & children are to be present at ecclesiastical judgments, as at all other public administrations of the church, where whatsoever is performed, is doon by prayer and the ministration of the word, that all may receive instruction by the word there ministered, and as is written all Israel may hear and fear and do no more any such wickedness. 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 well, it was never our judgment or practice, that in Elections women or children should give their voices, the Apostle and nature itself requiring women to be silent in the church: they also themselves have thus professed and practiced with us many years. Secondly they have seen Mr. Robinson's answer to M. Bernard (cavilling likewise about women and children, ) to the same effect. Yet will 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 again and again whatsoever they please to demand. For after in pag. 43. of their book, they are twice up again with these questions of women and children, as if we had naught ells to do, but to answer and answer their tautologies. Thirdly seeing they thus deal, to make the truth seem odious, and to set the more color upon their prelacy, imitating the papists and popish affected, they shall have the like things demanded of them, not by us, but by others. Themselves as yet allow popular election of officers, because they say to give voices in election is not a part of government, but a power right and liberty that the saints and people out of office have and should use. Now those of the prelates faction which deny this power of the people, say thus unto them; By this reckoning men women and children (for all the faithful be interested) shall have voices in election of their ministers; if any dissent, all must be dashed. Jt had been very requisite that our author for the appointing of these Democratical elections the better unto us, should with proof out of scripture for every particular have shown whether women or children of some reasonable discretion, should have voices in election of their Minister? whether he should be chosen by all, by the greater part, or by the better part? whether the wives voice should be accounted several, or but one with her husband, or whether she might dissent from her husband, or the father from the son? &c. They that compare these two writers, may see how they wrote by one spirit, and almost with one pen. Yet because in this point of popular election they do differ: we leave it for our opposites to answer these demands to the Prelates; and then if need be, they shall hear further of us, touching popular excommunication. Fourthly, if some would thus cavil against Moses law, which requireth the hands of all the people to stone a wicked man; and ask, whether women also and children must be present & cast stones: he might have as good color for his question as have these, if not better. For these say, in Israel, such as would not hearken to the Priests & judges, were to die by the hands of the people : and the proportion that they cast for the people now, is that they shall put the sentence in execution, by avoiding the excommunicated persons. Now, I think, they will have women yea and children also, to avoid excommunicated persons ; so then by proportion, women & children in Israel must cast stones at malefactors. Yea this may be further urged against them, by reason of a pregnant note which they give in their Treatise on Mat. 18 that that is such a church, as where women may speak & are to be heard in their cases and pleas as well as men, but, it is not permitted to women to speak in the Churches of the saints, &c. where either they aequivocate with this word speak, using it in divers senses, (a common practice of such as would deceive,) or they must permit women to have voices and suffrages as well as men, in all 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 whereas they intimate to the reader, as if we would have all men examine, rebuke, admonish in the presence of the Elders; they do but labor the disgrace of the holy order in the church: where the Minister as the mouth of the congregation, propoundeth examineth and carrieth 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 public judgments of the church being carried holily, peaceably and by the government of the Elders, even as in elections of officers, in prophesy, or any other thing wherein men have liberty for to speak. And when the Ministers carry things well, we commonly find it as in Act. 15.12. that all the multitude keepeth silence : otherwise strife (and sometime disorder) doth often arise, by the evil dealing of the Elders. 6. It is also to be observed how these our opposites will require by their proportion from Israel, children to stone their parents, wives their husbands, and servants their masters, by avoiding their communion: yet will 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 excommunicated; not bound to be present at the trial of their case? Did ever any common wealth in the world require such execution at the hands of wives children and servants; and yet teach them so little to honor 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, masters, which do 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 therein: but of the diversity of gifts and functions, given for the help and service of all, to the building up of the body of Christ. I answer; 1. the Apostle speaketh generally of the diversities of gifts, Ministries, and operations in the church, as they are given to to every man to profit with all ; and nameth in particular the gifts, operations and ministries, and among the rest the governors or governments : and there is no church action, which the Apostle purposeth not in that his dispute to comprehend: their first exception therefore is not true. 2. Neither doth it agree with itself: 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 : seeing they are to be judged by the gifts and functions of the church; they are for the help and service of all; they help to build up the body of Christ. Unless they would have us think, that the Elders prelacy 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 Christ's body but of Antichrists: this we will grant them to be true.

2. Secondly they except, the Apostle showeth it by the similitude of the natural body and faculties; and applieth it to the feeblest members, even the youngest children newly baptized, verse. 13▪ • 22. to whom he appointeth not the cases of syn to be brought to judgment and censure, as we hereupon would infer. I answer; in thus speaking they injury us, and the truth itself. Would we infer, that the judgment of syn should be brought to infants newly baptized; because we say, not the Elders only but the church is to judge, as Paul teacheth? And would the Apostle also infer (think they) that infants should rebuke and judge unbelievers, because he saith, when the whole church is come together in one, if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, he is rebuked of all, & is judged of all. And did Joshua also mean, that the youngest children newly circumcised threw stones at Achan, because he saith, all Israel stoned him ? we had not thought wise men would ever have made such inferences. And what weight is in their reasoning from infants? that if other besides Elders may judge sinners, then infants: if not infantes, then no other but Elders. Might not men thus elude all Paul's arguments? As when he saith the manifestation of the spirit is given to everyone to profit withal ; they to conclude, therefore the youngest children newly baptized can manifest the spirit to the profit of others. We have been all made to drink into one spirit : therefore infants also were partakers of the Lord's supper. If one member be had in honor, all the members rejoice with it : therefore 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 Israel : which we grant. Also we acknowledge that it may not either then or now pervert God's ordinance about the Elders hearing &c. They say, the governors are set in the Church for that use : I answer, not the governors only: this is that which they should prove. They are to govern the Church in all actions, but not to do them alone. Also they say, all 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 only the Elders have fit gifts for such purposes, is untrue: the scripture, and daily experience tells us the contrary: yea some other menbers may have fitter gifts then the Elders. And they thenselves 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 will have this scripture direct against us; in that it showeth how some have a more chief 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 little regard it, who in cases of controversy will look where the greatest number of people is, (though they may be of the most simple) and will have them to be the church, and to have the power &c. as if the multitude should still be followed, and that there were no difference of gifts, of office, or other respect at all 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, either of people or Elders: but in all cases we look to God's law and testimony as we are commanded; which when it is shown by whom soever, all ought to yield unto. We know neither the multitude, neither yet the mighty or Rabbies are still to be followed ; there are differences of gifts and offices in the church, yet no man's gift or office (no not though he were an Angel from heaven,) may carry us from the written word, by which the Godly people tried even the Apostles doctrine, and were commended. Although therefore the Church hath that liberty which all societies (that have none to exercise dominion or authority over them) have, namely that the greater number overswayeth the lesser, when all accord not: yet the faithful are not so to look unto or follow the greater number, as to decline from the least of God's commandments. This we may see in the 12. tribes of Israel, where the greater mumber, even ten of the tribes fell to false worship, and they carried away with them, not only the tribute of two hundred thousand lambs and ramms, which were due yearly from Moab to the Kings of Judah, & were wrongfully challenged and taken by the Kings of Samaria: but carried away also the title of the Church, being usually even by all the Prophets named Israel, whereas Judah and Benjamin were Israel as well as Ephraim and the rest, yea in deed they were the only Israel of God, as the scripture counteth Israel. Yet did not the faithful respect this greater number, but left them with their title, and usurpation, and went to the lesser part which was the better.

2. But is it not strange that these our opposites will object these things to us; when in some things they do the same, and in their new established hierarchy much worse? For in their popular election of officers (which they still allow, if it may continue,) must not the greater number of voices carry the thing? And yet there is no action of the church, that needeth more wisdom, government or circumspection then this. And therefore many precepts are left for the careful and holy performance of it, 1. Tim. 3. & 5. Tit. 1. And will not the Papists now cast the reproaches on their own faces, as they that would have the multitude still followed, as if there were no difference of gifts &c.

3. And touching their hierarchy the Eldership they will not I think deny, but the greater number of voices among them must prevail. 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,) shall by their number of voices carry 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 jointly from their offices. The utmost that we can find these men to allow the Church in these exigence, is when they have doon all they can, to separate from them: and this power any man hath in the church of Rome. But I hope everyone that • avoureth the things of God aright, will abhor such an unruly prelacy. For if these Elders prove such as Paul foretold of, grievous 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 years: what havoc & misery will not they bring upon God's people? And if we add unto this their other opiniō of God's covenant to continue with a Church, though they fall into so many horrible sins, idolatries & blasphemies as the Romish synagogue hath doon, which now they plead for to be still the true church of Christ: what will not a presumpuous Eldership do, and yet bear out themselves with this that they are the true church, and all that leave them (for what cause soever) are schismatics.

4. Let the reader also observe their manner of pleading, when they speak of the Elders proceedings, they annex, according to the Law of God : but speaking of the people, they annex, though in error, and though never so erroneously carried, and though they be of the most simple : as if they would persuade men, that the Elders usually through their wisdom and godliness walked aright, and the people through simplicity and error went astray. Whereas if either the scriptures be searched, or human histories, or the present state of churches be looked upon, we shall see the greatest errors, heresies, schisms and evils to have both arisen and been continued by the Elders, priests and learned Rabbin's in all ages: even Christ himself found no greater enemies then the high priests, scribes and rulers of the people, which turned to his reproach then, (whereof his church now is made partaker,) so that they said, doth any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees believe in him? but this people which kn • w not the Law, are cursed. John. 7.48.49.

5. Neither (if it were true) doth their supposition that the Elders will judge according to the law, bear out their supremacy, which Christ hath forbidden. For (besides that one man may judge according to law,) both the princes of Israel, and the princes of other nations, were bound to the laws prescribed: yet may not the ministers now by proportion have princelike authority, 1. Pet. 5.3. The philosopher could say They that bid the Law bear rule, do bid God to bear rule by his own voice: but they that bid man bear rule (meaning without law) do bid a beast to bear rule.

6. Here also they do violence to the Apostles similitude of a body, and say, when a part of the body is hurt, the hand is not used nor sought unto to see withal, nor the foot to hear, neither doth the head take them to consult and determine what to do, but when the head itself hath considered and determined, then it useth the help of the hand or foot &c. as there is need and occasion. I answer, 1. first much abuse may be offered to all 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 all the wit, and the people as the hands and feet, have none at all. The Elders as the eyes, see all things: but the people see no more then the ears. For if the people have some understanding and insight into matters as well as the Elders, why should they not be used also in consulting and determining public things which cōcern all. Unless the Elders now have such abundance of wisdom, as they can afford enough to all, 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 Jerusalem, to have all the people with them at their consulation & determination of a controversy, Act. 15.2.—22, 23. And why did the Apostles being the eyes, speak to the multitude, (which it seemeth saw no more then do the hands and feet,) to look out men of wisdom, for office among them? Act. 6.2.3. But what if there be of the people that see more then all their Elders, being illuminated as was David by God's precepts: & what if the Elders be blind guides as Christ calleth some, & without understanding, as the prophet cōplayneth? Then men must leave the blind Eldership, and go to the prudent brethren, and they must consult and determine, yea without the Elders, if these men say true. Do not these things manifest how they have wrested the similitude? 2. Secondly, it is direct against the Apostles meaning: who because of dissensions in the church of Corinth, showeth by that similitude of a body, that the chiefest members have need of the inferior, and the head cannot say to the feet I have no need of yow: but now the Elders can say to the people, we need not your help to judge and determine questions and controversies, this gift and duty is ours; neither are yow bound to be present to hear and decide public causes; but when we have judged, you shall execute our judgments. And if the people again should say to the Elders when they are about choice of officers, we need not your help, or counsel: you are not bound to be present when we do this business; the feet have no more need of the eyes to go, then the eyes have of the feet to see. Were not this to make a division in the body, which the Apostle there condemneth. 3. Moreover, it is vain to think that any officer or brother in the Church should so be one special member of the body, as that he cannot be another. The Prophets in Israel were Seers, and so in stead of eyes in the head: but when they looked out vain things, then as the Lord saith, the Prophet that taught lies, was the tail▪ Jsa. 9.15. The Elders, by directing the church in the right way, are as eyes to the body; by administering the sacraments and censures, they are as hands ; when they are sent on the Churches message, they are as feet ; when they reprove sins, they are as the mouth, when they are reproved for their sins, they should be as ears ; and so other Christians in their places and employments. And as God hath bestowed his graces upon any, so is he to be regarded of all, without respect of person: neither should the Elders be minded like Achitophel and take it ill, if at any time their counsel be not followed. A man may see that in the Church, which Solomō saw in the besieged city, a poor wise man, that delivered the city by his wisdom: though both he and his wisdom were despised. A woman in Abel when it was in danger to be spoiled, persuaded all the people with her wisdom to cut off Shebaes head; and so preserved the city. Was she in this action, a part of the foot, or of the heart and head in that body, may we think? 4. Finally, this their reasoning is one with the Jesuits, that exclude the people frō church affairs. The Church (saith 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 doth the Cardinal answer M. Luther's argument, and thus do these men answer ours.

6. Yet have they not said enough, but they will make it Antichristian servitude, to have the people bound to come to the public ecclesiastical judgments; unless perhaps when the Elders call them together to execute their sentence, for then I trow they are bound to come. And is not this again 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 do when they came together for the Lord's supper, writeth also to them how when they were gathered together, 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 well teach the people they are bound to come to eat the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, but not bound to hear the word teaching and preparing them here unto. We do so understand God's law, that when it commandeth us anything, it doth also command us to use all means for the right and holy performance of it: and all will be little enough. The people therefore that were bound to stone an idolater in Israel, were bound by that law thow shalt not slay the innocent, to look that he were duly convicted of the crime: and now by this law, be not partaker of other men's sins, keep thyself pure, every sowl that is bound to cast out a man condemned for heresy or other syn, is also bound to see him convicted, least Diotrephes cause to cast out faithful brethren. He that stands out to excommunication, will commonly plead his cause to be just; and complain that the Elders have perverted judgment: with what comfort of heart can the people now excommunicate 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 tyranny which the Elders would bring upon the consciences of the Church.

But they allege further, the Elders are to have maintenance for the doing of it and of the other duties &c. I answer, let them then excommunicate alone, as well as try the case alone: seeing they have maintenance for both, and let the people be bound to come to neither: no nor to the Pastors ministering of the word and sacraments (if this reason be good,) because he is more worthy maintenance than the ruling Elders, as the Apostle showeth. But then, they say, men must leave their trades, women their families, children their schools, servants their work, and come to hear and judge cases that fall out between brother & brother. I answer, 1. First they restrain things too much, when they say between brother & brother : for what if it be a public case of heresy or idolatry, as that mentioned Deut. 13, 12, 13, 14. &c. will they say women children and servants were then, or are now bound to leave their callings, & come together to try out the matter? 2. Secondly many cōtroversies between neighbors, are for civil things of this life: such are not church matters, nor there to be heard, but by Magistrates, or arbiters chosen. 3. Thirdly for doubtful cases ecclesiastical, people are to inquire the law at the Priests mouth, and to ask counsel of their Elders severally or jointly, who are to have their meetings apart for such and other like ends: so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church. 4. Fourthly, when apparent sinners so convicted by witnesses, are to be judged by the Church: there is no time more fit then the Sabbath day; wherein all men are bound to leave their own works, & tend to the Lord's, of which sort this is. Or if that day suffice not, they may take any other for them convenient: for unto public affairs the Church is to be assembled, 1. Cor. 5.4. Act. 14.27. & 15.4, 30. & 21.18.— 22.

Against this I know, they except saying, who can show such an ordinance of God? find we such a course used in Israel on the Sabbath days? Did they not meet on the Sabbath, in the temple and synagogues for God's worship &c. and the Elders sit in the gates on the week days to hear controversies &c.

I answer; for this later point they bring not any one scripture to confirm it: yet will I not strive there about, for I think it is true▪ Sure I am, the Jews canon laws so declare; Jt is not lawful (they say) to judge on the Sabbath, or on a festival day : yea further, that matters of life and death may not be judged on the evening of the Sabbath, or on the evening of a festival day, least [the accused] be found guilty, and it be impossible to kyl him on the morrow. I account civil controversies, of things pertaining to this life (as Paul calleth them,) to be of our own works, which by the law, are to be doon in the six days: and therefore think it not lawful for Magistrates to keep courts or Assizes, to judge and execute malefactors on the Sabbath. And this, among other things, showeth a main difference between the Eldership of the Church, and the Magistracy of Israel. But for ecclesiastical works by priests or people, they were to be doon on the sabbaths, as circumcision, kylling, slaying, cutting and burning of sacrifices, which was very laborious work, and even a breach of the Sabbath in outward show, but that the different nature of the action made it blameless. Now the church judgments are the Lord's works, not ours, and therefore fittest to be doon on the Lord's day: they belong to Christ's kingly office, and therefore are holy, as the works of his prophetical and preistly office. These our opposites themselves compare the casting out by excommunication, with the contrary receiving in by baptism. Al churches baptize on the Sabbath, and also excommunicate on the Sabbath: why should not the cause be heard, as well as the judgment executed on that day? We find, ecclesiastical controversies were disputed on the Sabbath days in Israel, as the Apostles practice showeth, Act. 13.44.45.46. & 17.2.3. & 18.4. It was lawful on the Sabbath to heal the body: and is it unlawful to heal the sowl? It was lawful to save a sheep from dying in a ditch: and is it not lawful to save a sowl from death, and cover a multitude of sins? Seeing therefore the Sabbath is to be sanctified by the word of God, and prayer: and all that the church ministers are to do, belongeth unto these, as the Apostles teach us, Act. 6.4. we think it is too Pharisee like to carp at church judgments on the Sabbath: and then servants (which are the Lord's freemen) and all other, resting from their own works, may attend to the Lord's, without such inconveniences as these would cast in their way. And hitherto of the first point in controversy.

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 sinners from amongst them, & this not only 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 sinners. 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, whereas by this opinion, they had power from Christ to do neither; for they that cannot cast out, cannot receive in, one power is for both.

With this they join out of the printed copy.

6. The 33. article [in our Confession] which our Apology also confirmeth, pag. 45. professeth that people being come forth of the Antichristian estate &c. are willingly to join together in Christian communion and orderly covenant, and to unite themselves into peculiar and visible congregations &c. These have pleaded, that all are bound to communion by virtue of their baptism 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 foresaid Apology.

Against this their former profession, these men now thus write.

1. Where find we in the scriptures, that God hath thus laid upon the people without officers to excommunicate? where is the precept for it? which be the examples of it? or what are the grounds requiring & bearing it out?

I answer, 1. First as their manner is, they would put others to prove, that which by others and themselves hath been proved and approved; and is not as yet by them or any taken away. It is easy for any to dispute and trouble men after this manner. 2. 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 still call upon us to answer their questions, & write more. Whereas Christ there encōmendeth to his disciples of all nations to the worlds end the observing of all things whatsoever he commanded the Apostles. And excommunication was one of those things commanded, Mat. 18. 1. Cor. 5. Therefore to be observed by a Christian people though they want officers, unless these men can show some prohibition. Christ requireth to observe all things ; these men say, nay, not excommunication: it lieth now, on them to show where Christ or his Apostles have excepted excommunication. But from that place, and by the very same reasons, do the Anabaptists deny baptism of Children, calling for scripture, example, precept, & ground to warrant it, as these do now in this case.

3. Thirdly, besides all things heretofore written, they have a ground in the article itself, which they neither do nor can take away; which is the power that the church always hath to receive in members: and therefore consequently to cast them out again if they deserve it. Which ground if they deny, they in effect deny that there can be any church without Elders, contrary to the express scripture Act. 14.23. 1. Cor. 12.28. Tit. 1.5. Yea or that there can be any visible Christians without Elders: for how can they be Christians without union with Christ? And if men cannot be united with his members and body, because there wanteth Elders, how should they be united with him the head? 4. They have it proved a point of false doctrine by Mr Johnson himself, to teach that the Church of Christ hath not always power to receive in and to cast out by the keys of the kingdom. Answer to M. Jacob, 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 excommunicate. Though yet the proof for the Elders will be excepted against by the Prelates and such like. For, th'examples of Abraham, of Paul, of Titus, of Timothy, and of the Priest 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 do none of them show the Elders power to excommunicate, but to watch, take heed, reprove, admonish &c, all which the Prelates grant to their inferior Priests: whom yet they will not suffer to excommunicate, without the Bishop or his Official, as these will not the Church, without an Eldership. The examples of excommunicating by the Rulers of Israel, I will turn against them thus: If the Magistrates and people of Israel might not only punish civilly with death, but also execute a spiritual censure of excommunication upon the consciences of evil doers, though they had wanted ministers of the Temple, and synagogues: then a Christian magistrate and people may do so now, though they want ministers ecclesiastical. And if the Church may excommunicate having a magistrate, it may also do it wanting one: seeing the power of spiritual censure dependeth not upon the civil magistracy, as the state of the Churches in the Apostles days showeth.

3, Thirdly they will have us to consider how a people can challenge 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, anymore then minister the sacraments: which whither they hold or no, let them tell us in their next. For they know well, the Prelates object these things against the ruling Elders, as themselves do now against the people.

4. Fourthly they say, they cannot find in scripture but when the church is called the body of Christ, or compared to a body, house, city or kingdom: it is spoken either of particular Churches having officers, or of the catholic church, in respect of Christ the head &c. I answer, it appeareth then plainly, they have lost that which they had found; and let them take heed least for not keeping it, God deprive them of finding it anymore. But I will help them, if it may be by their own writing, where this same author saith, A company of faithful people, (though considered a part by themselves, they be private men, yet) being gathered together in the name of Christ, and joined together in fellowship of his gospel, they are a public body, a church, a city, a kingdom, and that of Jesus Christ, who is present among them to guide bless and confirm what they do on earth in his name, and by his power. So that like as in a city the citizens considered a part, are commonly private members, yet jointly together are the corporation and public 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 joined together in the communion of the gospel, and gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ▪ as before is said. These things they have acknowledged: though now it seemeth they have forgot them, or (which is worse,) do dissemble them. Unto these I will add the Apostles testimony, concerning a house; Christ, is the chief corner stone: and Christians that come unto him, as lively stones are made a spiritual house, an holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Men come unto Christ by belief, and are joined unto him and one to another by mutual covenant. The ministers of Christ are as builders of this house, by preaching the gospel, laying first the foundation Christ, then upon him Christian people, God's building. But if (as often cometh to pass,) the builders do refuse, yet the Lord without them putteth Christ for head of the corner, and causeth the faithful to come unto him, and maketh them his spiritual house to dwell in them, whose house they continue to be, not by having officers always among them, but by holding fast their confidence and rejoicing of hope unto the end. Wherefore these men that can find no house of God without Elders, must prove that men cannot come unto, no • continue in Christ, unless it be by ecclesiastical officers, (which they shall never be able to manifest:) or all may see, how they are beguiled with error, that they cannot find things so apparent, and heretofore acknowledged by themselves. Ther opinion is injurious not only to Christians, but to Christ himself; whiles they will not grant him being the corner stone, the head, the king; and the faithful, the living stones his menbers and subjects, to make a house, body or kingdom; if the Elders want or refuse: though he as is written, walketh among his Churches and is with them all days to the worlds end.

5. Fifthly they say, our controversy was about a Church established with officers : & things concerning people without officers, are left to further consideration. I answer, true it is, they sought always to hide their errors, and to put off things which pressed them, to further consideration, and the Elders having got the Churches power into their hands, they lysted not to scan the people's right. But we were necessarily drawn to controvert this point two ways: first because their error did eat out the very constitution of the Church whereof they were, as shall after be manifested. Secondly because it was by themselves acknowledged that whatsoever power the people hav before; is not to be takē away by their officers; this therefore was an argument that manifested the evil which lurketh in their new doctrine. And who can soundly discuss any question, if they look not to the foundation; as Christ said to the Pharisees, from the beginning it was not so.

6. Finally, whereas we shown how their doctrine overthroweth the constitution of their Church ; as being without power from Christ, they say, First it were worth the knowing by whom the first man or two men of this church were received in, and by what power. I answer, it is true they say; and pray them therefore to show by what power their church began, if they would have men acknowledge it for true, and planted by the power of Christ Otherweise they must renounce their estate, and begin a new. As for ours, it is shown in our published writings, which if they can, let them disprove; as, in Treat. of the ministry, against M. Hildersh. p. 73.74. Apology, p. 44.45.46.47.

2. Secondly they say, by our baptism, as also by accord in the truth, we ar bound to communion in anything 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 tell us of communion by baptism and accord in the truth ; which extendeth to all churches in the world, and to Saints that ar not gathered and constituted into any particular church. We speak of a church with power to receive 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 yield such power and practice, to be a lawful thing in the communion of all such as ar baptized, or do accord in the truth ; they refute themselves: if not, all men may see how they seek to divert from the matter in hand. 2. Secondly by their baptism, they mean not only the true baptism in Christ's church, but the false baptism in Antichrists, as the article expresseth, and after we ar to scan: which if it be according to the scriptures which they cite, the one baptism, that by one spirit baptizeth all 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 Jesuits in anything 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 loath to wrong them, their own words lead me to this, if I gather amyss let them pardon me, & show their meaning plainly: for, he that doth truth, cometh to the light. 3. Thirdly, without baptism there may be a Church entered into covenant with God & one with another: as all Israel passed into the covenant renewed by Moses; when all the men under 40. years old, were uncirsed: besides all the women.

3. They thirdly say, it is plain and undeniable that to choose or give voices in election, is not a part of government &c. but an interest power, right and liberty, that the Saints out of office have and should use &c. I answer,

1. First this is plain and undeniable, so long as it pleaseth them not to deny it: but if they change their mind in this point tomorrow, as they have doon in the former about the people's power to excommunicate, then we shall hear, as we did before, where find we in the scriptures that God hath thus laid on the people without officers to make electiō? where is the precept for it? which be the examples of it? &c. They tell us it is plain ; but not one scripture is brought to show it: yet is it needful, seeing they know the Papists and other Prelates deny such elections without officers. The Prelates will show them sundry examples, where 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 we wish our opposites not to deal so slenderly, as to tell men it is plain and undeniable, & so to leave it: for we make no doubt, but the sound proof of this point, will disproov their former error. 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 show, 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 observe their covert carriage 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 do 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 will not deny but if that Pastor afterward proov a Wolf, the same people may put him out of all 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 Ministry unto a man: how then do these administer, which renounced some of them their former office and priesthood given by the Prelates, and as private men received a new calling and ordination: others from private estate, were constituted Elders by the people. Is this Ministry now from heaven, or from men?

4. Lastly they say, seeing their doctrine overthroweth not the constitution of the Church of Israel, nor of the primitive Churches, it cannot therefore 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 all: save that it is a fayr begging of the question. For the thing they should prove, is, that their constitution is according to Israel, or Apostolic. For, if Israel or the primitive Churches before they had officers, did or might receive in and cast out members, and if the people might set up, and depose officers by power from God: then are these men's errors overthrown. If not, but that the thing is unlawful for any then or now so to do, then is the constitution of their Church overthrown, as that w ^ch did grow up to such estate without power from heaven, and they are to let it fall, and be rooted up, and come to a better (if they can find it) according to the scriptures. Whether therefore our exception, or their defense be more vain & frivolous, (as they speak) let the prudent judge.

The 3. point of difference: in the Letter.

1. WE had learned, that every Christian congregation hath power and commandment to elect and ordain their own Ministry, according to the rules of God's word: and upon such default in life doctrine or administration, as by the rule of the word depriveth them of the ministry, by due order to depose them from the ministry they exercised, yea if the case so require, orderly to cut them of by excommunication. But now it is by some maintained, that the Congregation can neither put into office, nor put out of office unless they have officers to do both: and can neither for heresy or other wickedness excommunicate or depose their Eldership.

With this they join 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. Levite. 8. ch. Rom. 16.17. Phil. 3.2. 1. Tim. 6.3.5. Ezek. 44.12.13. Mat. 18.16. And in our Apology by 7. reasons deduced frō the Scriptures.

Hereunto they say 1. That the church may excommunicate an officer as well as any other member. I answer, they yet touch not the point; We speak of the churches ministry or Eldership in general; they tell us of one in particular: who because there ar other ministers, he may be censured by them. Bur if a church have only one minister, and he prove a wolf: they can neither put him out of office, nor excommunicate him, by their doctrine. 2. Secondly they say, if all the officers jointly transgress and so persist: then the church which did choose 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 all their officers, they desire to see it shown from the word. I answer, though they cannot deny the Article, yet they seek covertly to carry the reader aside. The article speaketh of choosing and ordaining, and so putting into office : they answer only of choosing : the other they pass by. But let them show ever any church, where men were chosen, and not also ordained and put into office : or that God committed the beginning of such a work to any people, and not the ending also. And why will they sever the things God hath joined? In the law; the church had authority to make them (that is as the Greek version showeth constitute or ordain, which word Paul useth Tit. 1.5.) Judges and officers in all their cities : and not to elect them only. 2. The article speaketh of deposing from ministry and putting out of office : they answer only 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 still▪ And shall not an Eldership, when the people have doon all this that they speak of, retain a ministry still?

The separation which they tell us of, is thus opened by their own comment, that it implieth the power we have over ourselves, whereas excommunication implieth power and authority 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 Christ's name and power, or to depose them from office, but from being their officers. Even thus they themselves h • ve deposed all the Bishops of England long ago. But whether this be not to aequivocate with the word depose, let wise men j • dge: for a little after they ask whether it can be shown by any scripture, that any did ordain or depose officers, but Governors. Now whereas our 〈◊〉 & Apology is confirmed by many scriptures & reasons deduced from them, they answer them not, as is meet they should, seeing they will abrogate their former profession, and bring in a new: neither do they (as they then wrote must be doon) show some other manner of entrance [into the ministry] ordained by Christ; but thus they labor to confute themselves. 1. The particuculars of the 23. Article of our Confession being found true in the churches of Israel, and of the Gentlies since Christ: the exception made hereabout cannot 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 comprehendeth 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 far from our thought. What is it then that they have said: but an ostentation of the name of Israel, their main colorable argument, which yet is against them, not for them at all, as our Cōfession and Apology showeth. In Israel the whole Congregation was assembled at the ordination of their ministers, and the childrē of Israel imposed hands upon them. This rule we follow: but these our opposites will not allow churches (unless they have ministers before,) to do thus: they will rather have their ministry from the great Antichrist of Rome, (as after shall be manifested,) for which they have no show in the scriptures. For did Israel ever take Egyptian or Babylonian priests to minister in their sanctuary? or did the primitive churches ever take any Bishop of the Antichrists that were in there time, & set them by virtue of their Antichristian ordination over the flock of Christ? why then do these men so often̄ tell us of Israel and the primitive churches, unless they think their very names would make us afraid?

But they except against Num. 8.9.10. saying, by the children of Israel &c. are the Elders of Israel often meant. I answer, 1. First this being granted, it disprooveth not our argument; for it may be often so used elsewhere, and yet not here. When we reason from Heb. 1.8. O God thy throne is forever, to prove Christ's Godhead: the Arians object, that Princes and Magistrates are often called God's, Psal. 82. Exod. 21.6. but is that a sufficient answer? 2. Secondly that which these say, is here true, but not the whole truth. 〈◊〉 Elders, are meant as principals, but not they to be all the congregation : which I thus manifest. The Levites now to be ordained Ministers, were taken instead of all the firstborn of Israel, and not instead of the firstborn of the Elders only: Num. 3.40.41. The Levites were now to be offered before the Lord, as a shake offering of the children of Israel, Num. 8.11. being freely given as a gift of theirs unto the Lord, to do the service of the Tabernacle of the congregation, Num. 18.6. & 8.16. Al offerings were by those that offered them, to be presented at the door of the Tabernacle, with imposition of hands, Levite. 1. verse. 2.3.4. &c. For as much therefore as these Levites were offered by all the Congregation (and not the Elders or officers only,) in stead of their own firstborn: it is evident that not the Officers only, 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 thousand of Israel, either at once hear, or do the things there spoken of? I answer, as well as they heard and did other public affairs in the Tabernacle: unless they think, that all the people never heard or did anything there. When the whole Congregation of Israel sinned, all the Congregation was to bring a sacrifice, Num. 15.24, 25, 26. will they ask how so many 100000. could do it? By this reason, nothing at all should ever be doon in Israel by the multitude, either for word, prayers, sacrifices &c. And so by their proportion of the Church now, let the people be exempted from word, prayers, sacraments, as well as from ordination of officers, and censuring of sinners: and let the Eldership be all in all.

3. Thirdly they except, if it be said 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 stead ? I answer, first the multitude & not the Elders only were assembled. Secondly the multitude and not the Elders only, gave these Levites to the Lord: both these are before proved. Thirdly for the order and manner of giving, Moses governed the action, to him it was said, thou shalt sprinkle water, thou shalt bring them before the Lord &c. and then the children of Israel imposed • ands: this I understand, not of every particular man, but of some of the chief for the rest: as the Elders, heads of tribes, chief fathers of families &c. as when 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 we practiced in our ordination of officers (as these our opposites well know,) some of the chief of the Church, the ancientest, and fathers of families, imposed hands in name of the rest. Now to their second questiō I answer, they did it under the Lord, and for the other people. But this will not satisfy them, for they say they were over the people to minister and govern in God's stead, Exod. 20.12. Num. 11.16.—30. Deut. 1.9. — 18. & 16.18. & 17.12. & 19.12, 17. &c, I answer, admit that all they which imposed hands were governors, (though that cannot be proved, neither doth honor thy father & mother Exod. 20, 12. I am sure, show any such thing:) yet they did not this thing as a work peculiar to their office of government, neither do any of the scriptures alleged, show so much, but the contrary may be manifested. For if they did it as governors, then was it either as governors ecclesiastical and ministers in the sanctuary: but so were not they, for Aaron and his sons had peculiarly that charge, Levite. 8. Or they did it as governors civil, & Magistrates of the common wealth. Which if it be affirmed, then first, Christian Magistrates now (which have civil authority equal with the Magistrates of Israel;) may ordain and impose hands on church ministers: and so men need not run to Rome to borrow a Ministry from Antichrist, as many now do fancy. Secondly if civil Magistrates may impose hands on Ministers: it will follow, 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 tied to the magistrates office: 1. because then the churches in the Apostles times wanting Magistrates, could not have had Ministers: but they had, and yet never intruded into the Magistrates office. 2. Because the Magistrates sword and office is not subordinate to Christ as he is mediator and head of the Church, (for so there should be no lawful magistrates but Christians & menbers of the church:) but Magistrates have their office next under God, to be heads of the Common weals (whether they be menbers of the church or not,) as Christ hath his office under God to be head of the Church: and these two goverments are so distinct, as they neither may be confounded, neither do one take in hand the work peculiarly belonging to another. Christ professed his kingdom not to be of this world, neither meddled 〈◊〉 with the outward sword, nor civil controversies: neither on the other side, might the Kings of Israel medle with the Priests work, 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 Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian lawfully (as concerning God,) reigned over the Jews, and did set over them a governor, and put some of them to death for adultery & other evils. And the Jews were bound to obey him and his substitutes, and to pray for his common wealth. But to the Babylonian Priests they might not be subject. Neither do I think that our opposites will say, Nebuchadnezzar and his Princes might give office of Ministry, or impose hands on the Levites in the sanctuary. Wherefore I conclude that the chief fathers of Israel imposed hands on the Levites, not because of their office of magistracy (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, & therefore by order to do it before all other, and in the name of all other, which for the multitude of them could not perform it: which order all churches now are bound to keep forever. And this which I have said, the words of the text in their natural sense do confirm, the sons of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites : showing that they did it not by title of Magistracy, but as Israelites. So also in the other case, when the Elders imposed hands on the syn offering, Levite. 4, 14, 15. it was not a work peculiar to the ecclesiastical Elders: for afterward King Hezekiah with the Congregation laid 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 do it, by the next chief menbers; & an unbelieving King reigning over them might not do it. Also if any people returning from captivity, had wanted Magistrates; they were not deprived thereby of offering sacrifice for their public syn. For if every private man might impose hands on his own sacrifice, as Levite. 1.3.4. how can we think that the whole company synning, the chief fathers might not have imposed hands, according to that rule, Lev. 4.15. Yea the word Elders doth not always (though often) mean Magistrates or ministers by office, but sometime ancient in years.

The other things which they allege, about the variety of phrase, as they do not disprove the thing forespoken: so make they nothing for them. They say such as are called Elders, Lev. 9.1. are called children of Israel, Lev. 9, 3. this is true: for whoever doubted but the Elders were sons of Israel as well as the other people. But if they bring it to prove the Elders or Officers only to be there intended, I deny it: the whole chapter after manifesteth the public church to be meant. For when Aaron had offered his own syn-offering, and burnt-offering; then offered he the people's syn-offering, and their burnt-offering, and their peace offerings : and after lifted up his hands to the people and blessed them. This was one of the most public assemblies, and who would ever dream that the Elders only were here expiated by sacrifice, and blessed of the Priest? they might even as well say, the Elders only did keep and eat the passover; comparing Exod. 12.3. with Exod. 12.21. where one verse saith all the congregation, and another, all the Elders.

The next exception of the Septuagint's translating the sons of Israel in Greek the Eldership : is not of weight, though the translators should have minded as do their Commenters. But they purposed not hereby to exclude the people, anymore then in 1. Sam 8.4. they would exclude the Elders: where when the original text saith, the Elders of Israel came to Samuel, they translate it in Greek, the men of Israel. So the Elders of Jabesh, 1. Sam. 11, 3. the Greek calleth the men of Jabesh. Of like weight are their observations about the word Church or Congregation, which being but once turned in Greek the synedrion, they score it up, as making for their Eldership: but though it be once, twice and thrice turned 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 well as the Hebrew itself saith, the children of Israel, shall impose their hands upon the Levites : so that their exception here standeth them in no stead.

Finally they observe the clauses in the article, according to the rules in God's word, and by due order &c. which as they bind them to show 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 show like rules practice or warrant of ordination, deposition and excommunication. I answer; first if a man would except as they do, 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, all things were doon by the counsel, ordering and government of the officers, even the election itself, Act. 6.2.3. & 1.15.—22. & 14.23. &c. Secondly their new devise of having their ordination successively frō Rome, is neither according to the rules in God's 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 ordain officers for another church, is more unorderly then when every church ordeyneth them in itself: the Apostles and Evangelists had their offices in all churches, so have not Pastors. Magistrates are limited within their own precincts: and the Major or Bailive of one corporation, hath no jurisdiction in another. So should all ministers be bounded within their own charges, and not challenge catholic authority in all churches, as doth the lawless usurping man of syn, Antichrist. Thirdly, the scriptures and reasons in our Articles and Apology, serv also for the ordination and deposition of ministers; though it please these men to pass them over in silence, because they are too heavy for them to lift. In our Apology 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 all church actions be orderly carried, either by the officers if there be any, or by the Magistrates as in Israel, or by the Fathers of families, or the most excellent in gifts requested thereunto by the congregation: this we firmly maintain, against all popular confusion and disorder whatsoever. And M. Johnson himself hath expressly defended this truth heretofore against M. Jacob, that where people first come to the order of Christ, imposition of hands is to be doon by the fittest among them, being thereunto appointed by the rest of the church, alleging Num. 8.10. though now he useth for defense of his contrary error, the Jesuits answers. For even so doth Bellarmine turn away the reasons of the protestants, saying, the people did never ordain nor create ministers, nor give them any power, but only named and designed them. Act. 1. & 6.

The 4. point of difference: in the Letter.

4. WE had learned that none may execute a ministry but such as are rightly called by the Church whereof they stand Ministers, unto such offices and in such manner as God hath prescribed in his word. But now these will execute a ministry, which have not rightly been called by the Church whereof 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 join, out of the printed copy.

3. The 29. article (of our Confession, as also our Apology pag. 51.52.) professeth that the hierarchy of Archbishops, Lord bishops, Priests &c. are a strange and Antichristian Ministry and officers, not instituted in Christ's Testament, nor placed in or over his church. These have placed over them, one that was made Priest by a Lord bishops ordination, so as because of it, they did not ordain or impose hands on him, when at the same time they ordained and imposed hands on others, whom together with him they set over the Church.

5. The 32. article (whereto our Apology agreeth pag. 52.53.54.) testifieth that all such as have received any of those false offices (of Lord bishops Priests &c.) are to give over and leave them: and so hath it been practiced here before by all such Priests as came to our faith and Church. Now one is Minister over thē, ordained Priest by the Prelates, as is before said.

The Confirmation of these points in our Apology (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 therefore see the answers. And there also let the reader see our replies. But they would blind their reader with show of answer, where none is. For the first point was of every Churches power to cast out obstinate sinners : the second of their power to elect and ordain officers. Now what are these to justify any unlawful ministry, either set up by a people without the power of Christ, or received by the tradition of Antichrist? It had been their part, seeing they deny their former grounds, to have shown us some better by the scripture: which how they have doon either there or here, let their writings being viewed manifest.

Secondly, they say if we would here imply a particular matter concerning one of their Ministers, about imposition of hands, that is a point also left 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 twice: and this they could not but see plainly to be our intent in that 4. article: though they wink and will not see it, and are mute, and will not defend it, but wind away to other things not there intended. Let them therefore in their next, bring a plain defense of their Ministry, which by their new doctrine is overthrowen: and use no more such tergiversation.

Unto the other thing objected in the 3. & 5. articles by Lawn printed: First they signify that their testimony against the antichristian hierarchy treated of in the Confession, is not by them reversed or weakened any way &c. I answer, these are but words: in deed and truth, the contrary will appear. For as heretofore they proved Antichrists baptism to be not a true but a false sacrament; but now they plead for it to be the one true baptism of Christ: so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian hierarchy of prelates Priests &c. their offices, entrance and administration: they now compare the popish ordination with the baptism. Also they bring to warrant this, the Priests and Levites which were called of God; as after is to be seen: and yet they would be thought, not to reverse their testimony. Secondly they tell us how they were combred with the Anabaptists, and occasioned to think of their ministry ; as 1▪ That imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of Antichrists &c. I answer, thus also they shall be occasioned to think of the Popes excommunication, for that is God's ordinance as well as their sacrament of orders : and of the Romish Mass or supper, for that is God's ordinance also; though by them abused to idolatry. Yea thus the Jews that f • l to paganism, mought take occasion to think of the hethēs sacrifices, for they also were God's ordinances in their first institutiō, as well as Antichrists sacraments. But as for the Anabaptists, thenselves long since so refuted them, without this their new plea: that there needed no fear of their strength at all. Finally, the impositiō of hands by an Antichristian prelate, upon that ministry which is not of Christ but of Antichrists apostasy, I deny that such imposition of hands is of God: and that such the whole ministry of Rome is, is proved at large by many scriptures, in M. Johnson's Reasons and Arguments against spiritual communion with the M • nist pag. 17.18. &c,

• . Their second observation is, that baptism and imposition of hands, are joined together among the principles, Heb. 6, 2. I answer, so are baptism & the Lord's supper (now of Antichristians called the Mass ) joined in 1. Cor. 10.2.3. & 12.13. that if this reason be good, their next thoughts must be, about the lawfulness of the Mass.

3. Thirdly they allege that imposition of hands is in Rome still given to the office of ministry, and in the name of the Lord. I answer, so also the Popes bulls of excommunication go forth from the office of Ministry, and in the name of the Lord : but so all mischief 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 is a sacrament, the outward sign or rite whereof, is imposition of hands : the thing signified, is the promise of grace. They have seven orders, Priests, (or Sacrificers,) Deacons, Subdeacons, A • oluthes, Exorcists, Readers and Ostiaries (or keepers of the door.) They are made Priests, when by the Bishop, (who only can give this order) it is said, Receiv power to offer sacrifice unto God, and to celebrate Masses, both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. The Bishop saith with all, Receiv the holy Ghost : the Priests are also shaved on their crowns, and anointed with oil on their hands; that by that unction, and the Bishops bless†sing those hands may be consecrated and sanctified of God. A stole of innocence is put upon the Priest, and he promiseth to the Bishop and his successors, reverence, and obedience ; and the Bishop gives him again the blessing of God the Fa†there, & 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 sins of the people. This ordination hath a double effect, 1. a perpetual spiritual power ; in sign whereof a character (or mark indelible) is imprinted on them ; and 2. grace making them acceptable, whereby they are enabled to execute their office. So this Bishoply ordination conferreth grace ; and if any shall say, that the holy Ghost is not given hereby, let him (saith the Council of Trent ) be accursed. This is that holy ordination (or rather, that abominable Idol, and 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 ministry, to which they say now it is given. M. Johnson himself ha • h set down heretofore 33. reasons and differences proving by many scriptures, that the popish priests office, is not the Christian Pastors office. Yea he affirmed the hierarchy of Antichrist, to be the most detestable anarchy of Satan that ever was : and what now will imposition of sacrilegious hands in the name of the Lord, do good unto such a detestable ministry ?

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 repeat or do again such abominations. And we pray them show us where is there precept, example or ground to keep the priesthood and indelible character of Antichrist? But be it as they say; what then will become of their own Ministry, for some of them have both received, & given unto others, reordination : are they not in as evil case (by their own grounds) as the Anabaptists with their rebaptisation ? They unjustly insinuate Anabaptistry 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 tell us by virtue of which ordination, they do now administer.

5. Fifthly they say, the Priests and Levites in Israel, being cleansed of their uncleanness, retained still their places, and their children after them, did minister without a new anointing or new imposition of hands &c. I answer, then belike the Romish priests must keep their Antichristian priesthood still; for so the Priests in Israel did theirs. Otherweise if they must have a new office; how can they do it by their old ordination? Even in Rome itself, when a Priest is promoted to a Bishops office, he is new anointed, both hands & head; the holy Ghost again given him, the pastoral staff, the ring, the Gospel is also given him, to go preach to the people committed to him &c. and he hath a new imposition of hands besides that he had before.

2. If the Priests children called of God, did in Israel minister without imposition of hands upon them at all, as they suppose: yet this will make nothing for Antichrists hierarchy, called of the Devil, with greasing, shaving, & imposing of hands, to sacrifice blasphemously for the quick and dead; that they should now minister by virtue of this office and calling in the Church of Christ. Neither might Baals Priests or Chemarims, administer in God's temple. Their reason therefore from the Lord's own Ministry, is altogether unfit; the hethenish Flamins or Druids, are fitter matches for Belials clergy. And this M. Johnson himself acknowledged, when he wrote against M. Hilderdersh. thus, If Jupiter's Priest, Act. 14.13. or if Mahumets Priests now in Turkye, should by the laws of their nations be enjoined, and thereupon should execute the Ministry of God's word, sacraments and censures: would it follow therefore that such Priests had the substance of the Pastors office? And why then should this Priesthood of Antichrist have more privilege then those, seeing the word of God hath laid this duty no more upon it then upon the other, but hath left them all, 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 another manner of plea.

6. Sixthly 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 twice, Act. 9.17. & 13.3. but where is the scripture that saith some had it not ? They say, we read not that the other Apostles had. what then? doth this proov they had it not? So we may also conclude the other Apostles were never baptized, for we read not that they were. We read not (say the Anabaptists) that children were baptized in the Apostles days: will these men now conclude, therefore they were not baptized. But do 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 do it. But they diminish the state of the question; for when the Apostle speaketh of Jmposition of hands Heb. 6.2. doth he mean the outward ceremony only, or the doctrine of the ministry, calling, & 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 only the outward sign, I would not contend. But they compare the baptism of Rome and the Ministry of Rome together: no new baptising into the church, therefore no new ordaining unto the ministry: but as all come out of the Apostasy baptized Christians, so some do come ordained ministers. Wherefore if these be alike, they bring with them in their account, the substance of a true office and of a true calling. Otherweise if a new office and calling be given them, I assure myself they that say Receiv the Teachers office &c. may impose hands: even as they that say: J baptize thee into the name of the Father &c, may put on water. Now these men's testimony heretofore hath been strong against the Office or ministry itself, with the calling, administration &c. And now let them show by the word, that a new calling 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 show our keeping of communion with all other churches &c. I answer, this reason is good, if communion be kept in the light not in darkness: let God's word therefore 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 all Scholars admitted into Geneva, must expressly detest the Popish hierarchy so called, as a Divilish confusion : which hierarchy consisteth of Bishops, Priests and Ministers, and they that say it is not by divine ordination are by the Council of Trent, accursed. Is not here good communion? Yea let me further tell them, how the learned and better sort in England, have disclaymed communion with that Romish clergy. D. Fulk, in the Answ. of a true Christian to a counterfeit catholic, saith, Although all godly men wish more severity of discipline to be used, in receiving them that come out of heresies to serv in the Church, then is commonly practiced in England: yet you are highly deceived if you think we esteem your offices of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, any better then the state of lay men, but far worse: for we judge them to be nothing ells but Antichristianitie, heresy and blasphemy. And therefore we receive 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 calling unto the Ministry. Thus wrote M. Fulk: but now these our opposites, to show how they would keep communion with Rome, allow of their ordering, as of their baptising, which they plead to be true baptism, as after shall appear. Yet let them show us whither all the hierarchy of Antichrist, as Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Friers, Monks, Jesuits, Seminaries, Priests, Parsons, Vicars, with the rest of that crew, be all of them to be admitted true Ministers into a Christian church, by virtue of the Imposition of hands, had in that kingdom of the Beast: and if not all, which of them must be reordeyned, and which not. Themselves have acknowledged that the Ministers of Antichrist, are the spirits of Devils, Rev. 16, 13.14. let them now if they can, manifest them to be the Ministers of Christ.

9. We thought best (say they) to stay and consider further &c. if we find it ought to be doon, we can do it at any time, &c. Then (say I) they should have stayed the practice 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 lawfulness: the Godly heretofore did not so in a case of doubt, but stayed the administration of some priests, til they had assurance from God. Ezr. 2.62.63.

10. The church (say they) did choose him into office, and we by prayer commended him to God for his grace and assistance in the ministration thereof. Which we did without imposition of hands at that time; as both ourselves 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 admit the members of another 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 Ministry 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 ministry which they never had. The outward sign at that time was not used, only because there were not Elders before: now there were Elders which imposed hands at the same time on others. It is a known fallacy, to pretend that for a cause w ^ch 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 another?

11. Observ (say they) how these and their partakers can hold that the people having no office may excommunicate, and some of them that they may also minister the sacraments: and yet can except against such as are in office, if they do but make question of a ceremony &c. I answer; the first we hold but as themselves heretofore did: & upon what ground they have left it, is before discussed. The second as touching us, (so far as I know) is a slander, a mere untruth. I know not one among us, that holdeth men without office, may minister the sacraments. The third, if it be as they say a question but of a ceremony, and not of the very substance of the ministry, to be retained as their baptism, I will profess to cease striving thereabout, (though I think they err in it,) yea and repent that I have striven so far. But if it be in deed more then a ceremony, as I suppose the things forespoken will manifest; let these men take heed how they so dissemble, for Woe unto 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 there is in their later thoughts, compared with their former judgments confirmed by so many reasons, as the public writings show. Let him also note, how for this later point which they count but a ceremony, they say many things as we have heard: but for the former, their own ministry, which is a matter of substance and most nearly concerns them, they say nothing, but turn aside as if they saw it not. And for this also, let the reader observe Mr Johnson's own words, in answer to Mr Hildershā, who can bring a clean thing out of filthiness? Is it possible that a lawful ordination, should be had from the ministers & Apostasy of Antichrist? Mat. 7.16. 2. Cor. 6, 14, 15, 16. with 2. Thes. 2.3. And if he be loath to stand to his former assertions: let him yet show what comfort or assurance any can have of the ordination in the Papacie, that it is frō heavē; considering the Priests have their authority from the Bishops, the Bishops from the Pope: the Popes (as their own writers & Chroniclers do record,) have been divided by schisms, 2, or 3, Popes at once, one cursing and condemning another, and among the successors, one repealing the acts of another. And among the rest, one she Pope John an harlot. And among many schisms one (which was the 22.) dured forty years, wherein the Antipopes so rent their Babel-church into factions, that the chiefest and learnedest of the clergy, 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 carried, that had rather derive their Ministry by uncertayn succession frō such beasts▪ then from the Lord's true Church and people? And may we think that when God bring the Jews again to the faith (as he hath promised,) that they will go to Antichrists throne for to erect a ministry for them? These and the like things considered, may show what soundness is in their doctrine and practice, that fetch their ordination from Rome, as they do their baptism.

Finally let me admonish the reader, that The man of syn, who boasteth himself to be the Bishop of the whole world, as also to have the Princedom (or soveraygntie) of all the world ; and may not only order and degrade priests, but set up and depose Princes, so exalting himself above all that is called God; is for thus doing, to be accounted a traitor against Christ and all Princes of the world. And as the days have been when he challenged both church and crown of England (as in King John's time,) to have the Prince his vassal, as well as the Priests his subjects: so is his will to do always and in all places. But this being tyranny and usurpation in him both over church and common wealth, he hath always had as good authority to make a Lord Major in London, as to make a Bishop there, and to create a Prince as well as a Priest or prelate: the one is injurious to the State, the other to the Church. And for men to hold or derive the priesthood or ministry from that Usurper, hath no more warrant that I know of, then if one would hold or derive a magistracy from him; for as God hath given every common wealth power next under himself, to cal & set up Magistrates, according to the laws of Realms; 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 consume with the spirit of his mouth, & to abolish with the brightness of his coming.

The 5. point of difference: in the Letter.

1. WEe had learned that it was gross error, and notorious absurdity, either to hold the Popish Church to be a true Church, having a true Ministry and true sacraments, or ells that men men must admit of rebaptising. But now we have heard, that the baptism of the Popish church is true baptism (by which we are bound to communion,) 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.

With this they join the 4. & 8. out of the printed copy.

4. The 31. Article of our Confession, (and also our Apology, p. 109.) professeth that such ecclesiastical assemblies as remain so in confusion and bondage under that Antichristian ministry, courts, canons, &c. cannot be esteemed true visible churches &c. These now plead, not only for thē, but for Rome itself, 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 thus dispute. 1: Jt is true baptism: as the circumcision in Jsraels Apostasy was true circumcision. I answer, these are their own assertions: but we would hear, Thus saith the Lord. True circumcision was the seal of the righteteousnes of faith: Rom. 4.11. Israel in their Apostasy were fallen from the faith, Hos. 11, 12. they were without the true God, & without priest to teach, and without law, 2. Chron. 15.3. and how then could they have the true circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, and forgiveness of their sins, in that sinful estate? 2. The matching of Popish baptism and Israel's circumcision, though in this they agree that they are both false sacraments & lying signs: yet is baptism ten times more defiled in Rome, then circumcision was in Israel. Let us take a view thereof, as it is at the best, and now refined by the Jesuits. When any man comes to be baptized in Popery, after some quaestions praemised, 1. He hath the sign of the Cross made on his forehead and breast; which holy sign among other good properties, hath power to drive away devils, 2. Then followeth Exorcisme that is, adjuration of the Devils to go frō the man that is to be baptized. 3. After that comes Exsufflatiō or blowing of the Devils away, & an afflation of the good spirit in their stead. 4. Next followeth the tasting of salt, which is unto them in stead of the Eucharist. 5. Then the touching of the nosthrills and ears with spittle, and saying Ephata, that is, be opened. 6. After that the priest gives him imposition of hands, and his blessing. 7. And then he is anointed with blessed oil on his breast and showlders. 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 the water, in the name of the Father of the Son & of the holy Ghost. 12. After comes the kyss of peace, in sign that the brother is baptized. 13. And an Unction of the Chrism, on the crown of his head. 14. Then is a wax candle lighted given him, for a sign of faith and grace received, & that he is translated out of darkness into light. 15. And a white garment is put upō him, which he weareth for a certain time. These pageants are played in Babels language, an unknown tongue: & this baptism ex opere operato, by the work wrought (for here is a great deal more doon then Christ ever would,) doth confer grace, and in very deed taketh away all sins, so as they are not only not imputed, but there is not anything that can be imputed for a blame unto him. And if any shall say, that grace is not conferred by the work doon, the Fathers of the Council of Trent have decreed, Let him be accursed. And although this baptism be of itself so gracious, yet any graceless person may baptize in time of need, be it man or woman, be it Christian, Jew, Turk or Pagan : baptism hath his effect, & conferreth popish grace, and washeth away sins notwithstanding. This is the baptism about which we contend: now let us proceed with our opposites arguments. If • be not a true baptism ( say they) it is a false: and false baptism is not God's baptism. &c. A true baptism we are bound to have, when we have the means, wherefor they that hold it not to be true baptism, must be rebaptised. I answer, we doubt not but it is a false baptism, and a lying sign, wherewith Antichrist deceiveth his subjects, under a show of Christianity: 1. because it is not possible for any work of a mere man (much less of a sacrilegious priest) to give grace, or to take away sins, for this is peculiar to Christ God and man, and to his most precious blood, which only cleanseth us from all syn. 2. because true baptism being a sign of the washing away of sins, and a seal of the righteousness of faith, of our engraffing 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 damnation, should have from God such a sign and seal; but they falsely usurp the same, as many other things to their just judgment. Yet need not men that discern and forsake those lies and impostures, to have any new washing: because the Idolaters heretofore repenting & forsaking their false synagogues and lying signs in thē usurped, needed not a new outward cutting or circumcising, as is shown at large in our former writings, Discoverie, p. 116.—120. Apology p. 110.—113. For though the degree of syn in Rome be greater by far then that of Apostate Israel, (as elsewhere is also manifested:) yet seeing they then were fallen from God and from his church, and so were divorsed from the Lord, and were not his wife, but dead in their sins: the ordinances of God which they in show retained, could not be unto them the signs and seals of forgiveness of sins, and of life eternal, and therefore were in their use of them, false and deceytful; as were also the ordinances of God retained in other nations, as Altars, Sacrifices, Priests, tithes, firstfruits, incense, meat offerings, drink offerings, feasts, baptisms or washings, anoyntings, excōmunications, prayers, vows, & many the like, whereof all histories do bear record, that the Gentiles did retain them.

2. They proceed secondly and say, If the baptism had in the church of Rome be not true baptism, then it is not the Lord's baptism: and then they which have no other but it, should get the Lord's baptism, afore they come to the Lord's table, to eat the Lord's supper &c. I answer, this reason is the same in effect with the former, and there answered, as also long ago objected by the enemies of the truth, and refuted by M. Barrow. We have gotten the Lord's baptism by coming to the Lord in true faith and repentance, who baptizeth us with the wholly Ghost and with fire. As for the outward washing which we had, it need not be repeated; as before is shown: and we may as lawfully eat the Lord's supper without a new washing, as the Idolatrous Israelites turning to the Lord, might eat the passover without a new cutting or circumcising. 2. Chron. 30.1.5.11.18.19.20.21.25. Ezra. 6.21. So whereas they charge us with profaning the Lord's table, it is turned upon their own heads: for they have these many years professed the Romish baptism to be not a true but a false Sacrament, whiles yet without a new washing they did partake of the Lord's supper. If this be to pollute and profane it, as now they press us, why do they not first repent themselves of such profanation ; why cal they not in, their former writings, and refute them?

3. Again (they dispute) there is but one baptism, Eph. 4.5. Baptism in the church of Rome, either is that one baptism or is not it. If it be that one: then is it true baptism: if not, then they which have no other but it, have not that one baptism, and therefore must get it &c. I answer, 1. This again is the same argument with the former, and before answered.

2. This ground from Eph. 4.5. was that which Cyprian built on, who taught rebaptising of such as had been baptized by heretics: whose arguments seeing our Adversaries thus urge, we pray them tell 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 all such as are baptized by heretics, Antichrists, excommunicates, schismatiks, and other like, have that one true baptism of God, Eph. 4.5. and so have the seal from God of forgiveness of sins, and are one body with thenselves. 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 either a seal of God's covenant or not. If it be, then sure it is true baptism. If not, then 1. they which have no other baptism, must with the Anabaptists get another, that they may be assured they have the seal of God's covenant &c. 2. then that there neither have been nor shall be in Babylō any of God's people &c. Rev. 18.4. 3. then, baptism now had in Apostate churches is not answerable to the circumcision had in the Apostasy of Israel: for that was true circumcision &c. I answer, they may by a little varying of words make an 100. such reasons, alone and the same; all begging the question, and proving nothing. What one scripture or reason frō thence, is here brought to prove Antichrists baptism, true baptism? Let any mā define by the word, true Christiā baptism, & then compare therewith the blasphemous Christening before set out from Bellarmine, and he shall see what accord is between them. And whereas the burden of these men's song, is, we must ells baptize again: this is no proof at all; for (besides that which is before answered,) what if it be our error that we baptize not again? where be then all their proofs, are they not vanished into smoke? Verily I should much rather incline to Cyprians error (though I am far from it) for a new washing: then approve the sacrilegious washing used by that man of syn with most high dishonor to the blood of Christ, to be that one true Christian baptism; the seal of God's covenant. For that of Rev. 18.4. because God calleth his people out of Babylon, therefore Babylon's baptism is true baptism, is without all color of reason. As if one should argue thus, God by Jeremiah called his people out of Babylon, Ier. 51, 45. therefore Babylon's sacrifices, and sacraments, were true. Who would not rather conclude hereby the contrary: God calleth his people out of her, therefore she with all her counfeyt service, sacraments & apish imitation of God's holy things, are detestable and cursed. Again, a people may be God's, though unbaptised: as the uncircumcised Israelites were God's people, Deut. 29.10,—13. with Josh. 5, 4, 5. The 3. point of Israel's circumcision to be true, is but barely by them affirmed, without proof; and is before disproved. And if they shall continue thus to say all things, and prove nothing: I will never trouble myself more to answer their discourses.

5. Finally (they reason) if baptism in Rome be not true baptism, then (as we also said) it is an idol; bearing show and image of that which it is not in truth. And jdols ar things of naught &c. and so baptism in Rome, is a thing of naught; and to be esteemed as nothing in the world, as filth, or dung &c. I answer, idols are of two sorts; some merely devised by men, as Jereboam's calves: some perverted by men from holy signs to Idols, as the brazen Serpent. Both these kinds are in popish baptism. For their crosses, exorcisms, greasings &c. are Idols of the first sort, worse then Jereboam's bullocks: their washing with water in nomine patris &c. is of the second sort, that is, God's ordinance turned into an Idol as was the brazen Serpent. Thus is there a mixture in Antichrists Christening, of both sorts of abominations. Therefore have we renounced that Romish baptism, 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 sins, which it doth not; but it is a lie in the right hand of all that so receive 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 contrary to the Prophet, who saith their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands, Psal. 115.4. an idol then for the matter and workmanship is something, but for the relation unto God, or divine grace, it is nothing: and thus the Apostle meaneth as his next words show, there is no other God but one. So Popish baptism, as touching the material thing is somewhat, the salt, the water, the oil, are God creatures: the outward action is the work of the hands of an idolatrous Priest; and this work remaineth as did the work of the Idolaters circumcising in Israel: but as touching the relation, (which is the main thing in a sacrament,) that it should seal up unto them the forgiveness of sins, and (as they blasphemously say) quite take away sins, and confer grace; so it is a vain idol and nothing: for neither do the true Sacraments in Christ's church work any such effect to God's 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. Therefore it will not help them to say, that baptism in itself considered, is Christ's ordinance: for the brazen Serpent was in itself God's ordinance at first, and a sacramental sign of their redemption by Christ, yet they that burnt incense to it, made it an Idol, and therefore as Nehushtan, (a piece of brass,) it was destroyed. Yea this is acknowledged of the popish baptism, by the most learned and conscionable of our own Land. M. Perkins saith, and proveth it, The Church of Rome transformeth the sacraments to Idols, by teaching that they confer grace ex opere operato, by the work doon &c. To this effect (saith he) the Priest is appointed to pray, that the nature of waters might conceive the virtue of sanctification: that God would make the water fruitful by the secret admixtiō of his godhead, that having cōceived 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 showeth that 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 Johnson himself, hath pleaded the Prelates and Priests (which administer baptism) to be Jdol shepherds, the sacraments to be not true but false ; and citeth against them their own testimonies to prove that Christ himself is made an idol among thē. Yet loe how he now inveigheth against us, for saying that the baptism in Antichrists synagogue is an Idol.

But now as Satan hath begun to persuade Antichrists christening to be Christ's true baptism, (although the scripture plainly saith, what concord hath Christ with Belial? ) so he will 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 enjoyeth these 2. sacram ^ts , the same priests minister them, both in the same Babylonish unknown language, both of thē having Christ's institutiō abused by the man of syn: and as water is in their baptism, so bread and wine is in their mass: as in baptism they use the name of the Father the Son & the holy Ghost, so in the Mass, they use Take eat this is my body &c. Now why should one of these sacraments be true, and not another? Al that are not Antichrists bondmen, detest his Mass as a monstrous idol: let them that liest, honor his baptism. Again, excommunication is God's ordinance as well as baptism : and these our opposites say, that by it a man is cut off from communion with all churches of Christ upon earth, having his sins also bound in heaven; as on the contrary by baptism we are entered into communion with all churches of Christ in the world. This Excommunication the church of Rome useth as well as baptism, and hath power from Christ to do it, as well as to baptize: whereupon it will follow, if we be bound to communion with them that they baptize, we are also bound to avoid the communion of them that they excommunicate. Now for as much as these our Opposites themselves (besides all other) that have separated from the church and doctrines of Rome, have many curses and Anathemaes laid upon them by the council of Trent and Popes Bulls: what ar they the better for being baptized in their infancy, now that they are excommunicated in their man's age.

They told us before, (and said, 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 will not answer us, let them answer the Papists, who plead that their Apostate priests being divided and cut of from the church, and excommunicate, may not lawfully minister the sacraments. And whereas M. Jewel complained, we have been cast out by these men • , being cursed of them (as they use to say) with b • l book and candle : Harding answereth; To be excommunicate, ye have deserved &c. neither were ye by excommunication put from us, til ye had by contumacy severed yourselves from the Church, and shown yourselves desperate and incorrigible. And what will they say to the Synedrion, the representative church of England, whose excōmunications ipso facto, if they be of the Lord, do forbid all Christians to communicate with these men, that thus plead for Antichrists baptism: yea they will tell M. Johnson in his own words, that it is a fearful syn, (their Church being a true Church) to contemn their excommunication. If they answer, their excōmunications are unjust, therefore they are of no weight: this will not salve the sore. For 1. all excommunicated, will say they are cast out unjustly: shall their own sayings be accepted? if not, then neither these men's; til their particular causes be cleared. In the mean time, men will more regard the church, then him that is cast out of the Church: and according both to Christ's doctrine, & the doctrine of the Church of England, he should be esteemed an hethen and publican. 2. Again many have been cast out for contemptuous refusing to come unto the Bishops synedrion, & they have left those Bishops, Ministers, Consistories & Churches, as being all false and Antichristian, unto 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 Ministry, (though with corruptions): how will they be able to bear out such as are excommunicated, for so great contempt and error? 3. Thirdly, as Antichristians do excommunicate such as they should not: so do they baptize such as they ought not, even open impenitent Idolaters and their seed, the generation of Vipers which John the Baptist would refuse. Yea Mr Johnson himself hath said of a better estate then Rome's, that God's covenant is sacrilegiously violated, whiles it is said to the open wicked (in delivering them the seals of God's covenant) Thou art righteous. Therefore if the Popes excōmunicatorie bulls, are but bubbles because they are unjustly executed: his baptism 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 people's fallen from God and his Church, using it colourablie for a religious action, (as all Antichristians and heretics do baptism at this day,) did or were bound to cut their foreskin the second time, if they came unto the truth of God: as for example, the Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians, whom histories mentiō to be circumcised; or the Samaritans, whom Mr Johnson acknowledgeth to have still used circumcision. Hereunto we may add out of the Jewish records, how they hold, that Al have leave to circumcise, yea though it be an uncircumcised person, or a servant, or a woman, or a child, circumcising in the place where there is no man. But an hethen may not circumcise at all: yet if he do circumcise, there is no need to return & circumcise the second time. If this rule stand, we shall not need to repeat our outward washing in baptism, though given us by Antichrist, or any other aliens from the church & covenant of promise.

The 6. point of difference: in the letter.

WE had learned that all particular congregations are by all [ VI] means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another, in all needful affairs of the Church, as menbers of one body in the common faith: yet here when differences had arisen about our common faith, and could not amongst ourselves be cōposed, they would not desire nor consent to have desired, the help of our sister Church at Leyden, although it were instantly urged by many members that their assistance should be had.

With this they join the 9. out of the printed copy, to the effect of the former.

Against this they except, 1. that though for some reasons they abstained from desiring it, or sending for them, or giving their consent so to do: yet they were content to permit it: which was not a denying of the practice 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. show another manner of duty, then a permission. For when dissention had arisen in the church of Antioch, they ordained that some should go up to Jerusalem, unto the Apostles & Elders about the question. And the messengers were sent forth of the Church, and were received by the Church at Jerusalem, & the Apostles and Elders, who came together with one accord, & after discussing and agreement, wrote to the Church of Antioch, what had seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them. And Paul showeth a reason of such mutual intercourse, when he saith, Came the word of God out from you either came it unto yow only ? 1 Cor. 14.36. Wherefore seeing the word of God, was come unto the Church of Leyden, as unto us; and considering the practice that was in the APOSTOLIKE Churches heretofore, and our profession to walk according; it is but a sory answer to say they would permit of it, if others did it; as Moses permitted the bill of divorse, for the hardness of men's harts; and as Paul spake a thing by permission, not by commandment. For we think those Apostolical practices, Act. 15. to be in stead of commandments unto us, Philip. 3.17. And our Confession noteth it as a duty, even by all means convenient. By this all may see, how weak a defense they make, for their proceedings.

Their reasons follow; 1. that the other Church & we were in peace together: & if by this occasiō the peace should be brokē, they should not say, they sent for thē. I answer, this exceptiō will lie against all Churches in the world that are at peace: and might have been objected by the contentious at Antiochia; Act. 15. and will be color to cut off all use of that practice, 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 Jerusalem, Act. 15. & it is a bar to cut of all help from other Churches. Yea if any heresy be raised by the officers in a Church, contrary to their former faith: they may thus except against all Churches, unless they will fall into the same errors with them.

3 Thirdly they allege former experience with others. I answer, we never had experience of the like: M. Smyth in deed leaving the truth, and broaching his heresy against the translated scripture, would needs publish it in our Church. It is one thing to raise up a new error, as did he: another thing to maintain the ancient faith, as did the Church of Leyden with us. So that which they fourthly allege, is but a pretence that all will make, be their errors never so new; & they that urged circumcision Act. 15. could plead the ancient practice in Israel, far better then these our opposites can do for the power of their Eldership.

4 Their next exception about a letter written by some to that church, a copy whereof was desired, but not granted &c. is an occasion taken by that accident. But they know, that before that letter was written, they signified their unwillingness to entreat 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 shown 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 denied the practice of that article &c. I answer; first I had sundry times signified in public my mind, that their help should be desired in the end, if we could not agree, but we would first use all means among ourselves: & so I never was of their mind, who refused absolutely to desire their help; & this they well know. Secondly, I subscribed those Letters, because I thought it meet that a copy of the foresaid 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 denial of requesting their help, were put out and changed. Fourthly, when no means among ourselves could end the strife, they know, how I both entreated them to consent they might be sent for: & when they would not, myself went and obtained their coming. In deed I was loath 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 therefore shall 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 testify. 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 far as we could, and ended with them. What reason had we now to call for them to defend that error which our whole church had condemned? Secondly, they could not discuss the controversy in our English tongue, to the understanding of our Congregation now troubled: no nor of all our Elders. Thirdly, these that thus object, did not (to my remembrance) 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 color, for withstanding the help of the Church of Leyden: with what weight and equity, let the prudent judge.

The 2 Article objected.

We professed heretofore, that Christ gave the power of receiving in & cutting off, to the whole body together of every Christian congregation, & not to any one or more members sequestered from the whole &c. Now we have been taught that in cases of question and controversy, the greater part of the people are the Church; though all the Elders and other brethren be against them, &c. and so have the power to receive in & cut off &c.

I answer, there is no contradiction in these things; we hold still in all points according to the article alleged: neither ever taught we the people only to be the Church sequestered 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 fall into heresy or wickedness themselves, or to abett wickedness in others, and will not be reclaimed 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 all other impenitent sinners. and this by the voices of the most of the congregation, if all consent not; as well as members or officers are received in by the voices of the most, if some do dissent: for there is one power for them both. And these our opposites must either manifest, that if one or 2 officers or members do dissent in a controversy, there is a sequestration of them from the whole, and the Church then hath not the power of Christ to receive in and cut off: or else all may see, that this is a colorable accusation of theirs, & no contradiction of ours. For if the consent of all & everyone, be not necessarily to be had, they dissenting through their ignorance, frowardness, or the like: thē the most voices must prevail. But how far their new doctrine (that the Elders are the Church,) is, both from our former professiō and from equity, I have before shown.

The 3 Article.

We wrote heretofore, that the Elders have the reins of government committed to them: now we are taught that the government 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 deceive the reader, by turning government into power, which we in our public profession heretofore distinguished, and so do still: giving the government of the whole Church, and all the actions of it, unto the officers: the power to the whole body; and so to the officers with the people, as jointly Kings and Priests: 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: neither shall these men ever prove it. And in the book which they cite, in the very same place (though they dissemble it,) we show the Church (not the Elders only) to have Christ's power to judge all within the same ; and that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to the whole Church, as the Protestants have heretofore testified against the Papists. That these men do but feign contradiction, and would blind the reader, by confounding the Churches power and government, as one.

The 4. article.

We professed heretofore, that no sacraments should be ministered, until the Pastors or Teachers were chosē & ordained into their office: now it is held by some, that seeing all the holy things of God are the churches, & people without officers are a church, therefore they may without officers have the use of the sacraments and all the holy things of God, and consequently may receive in by baptism, confirm by the Lord's supper, cast out by excommunication &c. And in this writing sent unto yow, it may be observed, how they infer that people without officers may cast out, and therefore may receive in, there being one power for both.

I answer; they wrong us, and abuse their readers. 1. There is not to my knowledge (as before I testified) any one man among 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 fraud, and abuse of the reader, and injury to me, when they first speak of receiving in by baptism, and then allege from my letter, that the people without officers may receive in : as if they would bear the world in hand, I therefore hold, they may baptize. Whereas first the scripture showeth that persons uncircūcised (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 baptized. 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 denied the sacraments in a Church without officers, yet professed they had then power to receive in members. Wherein now are we contrary to our former faith? Doo not these things rather show, how they seek to make strife, where none is.

The 5. article

We had learned, that none may usurp or execute a ministry, but such as are rightly called by the Church whereof they stand ministers, unto such offices, and in such manner as God hath prescribed in his word: now it is held by some that people out of office may execute all the works & duties of the ministry, for baptism, Lord's 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 do both, as is observed before.

I answer; their fraud and wrongful dealing is also observed before; and here to make their syn the more remarkable, they proclaym it the second time. Of ministering the sacraments, and of receiving in and casting out of members, and against usurping or executing a ministry without due calling, we hold as always heretofore: they repeat the same things, but to their own further blame; for our professed enemies, do not ordinarily more wrest our words.

The 6. article

6. We learned and used heretofore to apply to our estate and use, the things that the scriptures teach concerning the governors and people in Israel. Now we ar excepted and opposed against, if we do 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 follow Christ into heaven, whereas the people might not follow the high Priest into the most holy place &c.

I answer; the right applying of our estate to Israel, we always have and still do approve: but these men's wrested proportions, and making the Church in Mat. 18. to be the same with the Jews Synedrion or Sessions of civil Magistrates, we do 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 sins in Israel, so absolutely touching the Church order or polity, as Christians do now, is evident by the Law, which bound the offender not only unto repentance and faith in Christ, as also to confess his syn and satisfy his neighbor offended; but withal to bring a trespass offering to the Priest, (the minister of the Church,) that so the Priest making an atonement for him before the Lord, it should be forgiven him, Levite. 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. neither is such a man bound to go to a minister that he may pray for, or forgive him; as the Papists by proportion do gather. 3. That the Apostle also showeth a difference of our Church estate from the Jews polity, Heb. 9.7.8.9. &c. & 10.19.20. compared with Gal. 4.1.2.3. &c, is manifest: neither can our opposites deny it; only 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 Israel, because they now follow Christ into Heaven &c. To omit their ill framing of the reason, for their most advantage, I answer, they that would so say, should show their ignorance, or a worse humor, Because Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, neither meddled he with Magistrates power, but left it as it was, authorized of God his Father, and not subordinate to his Mediatorship; as before is shown: and therefore Magistracy hath neither more nor less by him now, then in Israel and former ages. But his Church, and so the Magistrates therein 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 carried in by the high Priest, in the precious stones on his shoulders and breast, as the most holy place itself was a type of Heaven. I answer, this is true, and confirmeth that which I said: 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 polity, better then theirs, which are not restrained from any place whither the ministers of the Gospel may them selves enter, but we are the Priests of God and of Christ, and may be bold to enter into the holy place, into the type whereof only the high Priest under the Law might enter sometimes and the people not at all 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, touch not, taste not, handle not, and other worldly rudiments under which Israel in their child's estate were in bondage, Gal 4.3. Therefore the Apostle, which showeth their estate and ours to be one in substance concerning faith in Christ unto salvation, H • b. 11. showeth also great differences between their condition and ours touching the clear manifestation of God's grace, and the outward polity 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 practice of the Apostles: that if in anything we miss (as easily we may,) in the application of those legal types, yet the doctrine confirmed by other plain scriptures, remaineth 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: showing how Christ and the Apostles reasoned well, from the civil state of Israel, which we grant. Yet I hope they will not deny, but it is possible for other men to reason amyss, and to make ill proportions from the common wealth of Israel, as do the Papists, and as before is manifested that these our opposites have doon.

The 7. article

7. We held that the baptism of Rome, was as true baptism, as circumcision in the Apostasy of Israel was true circumcision, and needed not to be renounced and repeated: Now we were taught that the baptism aforesaid is an Idol; and we know all 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 Apostasy of Israel, could be no true sacrament, no true seal of the covenant of God's favor unto them : also that baptism delivered in the false church is no true seal of God's covenant, or true sacrament. Mr. Johnson himself hath defended this very same, that in that estate of their Apostasy it could not be a true Sacrament, and so for the baptism in Rome; not a true but a false sacrament. So the contrariety 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 all men of judgment, which know what an Jdol meaneth, will think there is no contradiction. But is not this good conveyance, for them to say; as true baptism, as circumcision in the Apostasy of Israel was true circumcision: whereas we professed of that baptism (as also of that circumcision) that it could not be a true sacrament unto them, but a false? Will not the judicious reader see, that they cast a myst before men's eyes, to disgrace the truth which themselves formerly professed? As for the consequences, I have before answered them; and shown how though the Idol be put away, there need no repeting again of the outward washing: and have proved that Antichrist hath turned the Lord's baptism into an Idol, as the Jews did the brazen serpent, by burning incense to it: and that the most conscionable in our own nation have so professed, and the University of Cambridge printed, that the church of Rome transformeth the sacraments (yea even Christ, and God himself) into Idols. But these our opposites are gone from the truth and from themselves herein, into the tents of our common adversaries, M. Gifford and others, who would have concluded hereupon a new outward washing: but were refuted by Mr Barrow. And Mr Johnson once professed that he thought he should never have seen anymore absurd writing then M. Giffards ; though now he reasoneth like him. He also told the Oxford Doctors, that to hold the popish church to be a true church, having a true ministry and true sacraments, or else that they are unbaptised, and must admit of the Anabaptists rebaptisation, are naught else, but gross errors and notorious absurdities. Yet loe how he now presseth us with the same things: and passeth over our reasons rendered heretofore, without answering them as is meet.