The first point of difference: in the Letter.

1. Wheras we had learned and professed, that Confess. art. 24. Apol. p. 62.63. Christ hath given the power to receiv in or to cut off any member, to the whole body to­gither of every Congregation, and not to any one, or moe members sequestred from the whole: now wee have been lately taught, that the Church which Christ sendeth to, for the redress of synns Mat. 18.17. is not to be understood of the whole body of the Congregation, but of the Church of Elders. And it being granted of al, that with the Church is the power, the Elders being the Church, have the power, and so not the whol body of the congregation togither.

And in the copie vvhich Lavvne printed.

The 24. Article [of the Confession of our faith,] (confirmed in our A­pologie, pag. 60.62.63.) professeth that the povver to receiv in, or to cut off any member, is given to the whole body togither of every Christian Congregation, Mat. 18.17. &c. These have pleaded for the Eldership to be the Church, Mat. 18. and to have both rightful power and able power to excommunicate, though without & against the consent of the body of the Congregation.

The scriptures to confirm our former doctrine and practise, are in our Confession, Psal. 122.3. Act. 2.47. Rom. 16.2. Mat. 18.17. 1. Cor. 5.4. 2. Cor. 2.6.7.8. Levit. 20.4.5. & 24. 14. Num. 5▪ 2.3. Deut. 13.9.

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

For ansvver hereunto, their Advertisement telleth vs many things. First of their Treatise published on Mat. 18.17. touching vvhich, I also have spoken before. Neyther is this point of the Churches power therin plainly handled, but closely caried: neyther is ther any thing at al sayd, to take avvay the other 8. reasons, in our Apologie. Let the reader compare the writings, and judge. There be also [Page 13] things formerly written both by others and by them selves, touch­ing this of Mat. 18. and things lately published against M. Bernard about it: to these they give no answer at al, yet cal they upon us to write more.

2. Secondly they carp at this phrase, the Church of Elders; and would have it the Congregation or Assemble of Elders: saying that so men might sooner perceiv the vanitie of our error. And that I my self elswhere shew the word is sometime used for an Assemblie of Elders. I answer; 1. If they wil rase the word Church, out of the Bible, as unfit, they may doo so in Mat. 18. and in this controversie: or els they must give us leav, to keep wonted known words, which help men to discern the truth of matters. 2. Neyther shew they any one scripture for the phrase they would have, the Congregation of El­ders: neyther did I ever shew or could see the word Church so to mean in al the new Testament: but in the old (which now is chan­ged,) I have observed it in some few places. 3. But be it Church or Congregation, I wil not much contend: yet I know their eyes wil da­zel that look hereby to discern in our doctrine eyther vanity or error. Albeit I confess these our opposites, have the Papists on their side; for so Card▪ Bellarmine De Verbo Dei, lib. 3. c. 5. expoundeth this Tel the Church, that is the Prelate, or the Congregation of Prelates; & De autor. eccles. cō ­tra Whita­ker. l. 1. c. 1▪ S. 5. Stapleton interpreteth the Church, Mat. 18. to be the Ministers. 3. Thirdly, they observe that the scriptures of the old testament are quoted for our 24. Ar­ticle, as directly carying us for this matter to the Church of Jsrael; which now we would not be brought unto. &c. I answer; the first is true, for the scriptures cited doo shew that the people were interessed in those publike actions with their magistrates: and therfore there is no reason that now there ministers should claym the whole power to themselves. The latter is untrue; for we did consider and decide the matter between us, by the scriptures of the old Testament, compared with the new, and so are stil ready to doo. But alwayes with ob­serving the differences between the state of the church then & now; which are many, as the Apostles doo teach us. Heb. 8. & 9. & 10. chapters. Gal. 4.1.2.3. &c. Heb. 12.1 [...].—28.

4. Their last observation hath two branches: the 1. that the power of receiving in & cutting off in Jsrael, was to be performed according to order; and not to weaken but to stablish thhe Elders authoritie. This we [Page 14] willingly grāt: neither ever doubted of. But we observ withal, a de­ceyt which they couch under this name Elders: which usually in the old Testament, is given to Magistrates ▪ which are also caled in re­spect of their autoritie Lords, Princes, Judges, yea and Gods, 1. Sam. 23.12. Num. 21.18. & 22.7.8. Deut. 19.17.18. Exod. 21.6. Psal. 8 2. and by the Apostles they are caled [...]owers (or Autorities) and Glories, (or Dignities,) Tit. 3.1. 2. Pet. 2.10. But the name Elders, now in the Church of Christ is given to the Ministers, 1. Pet. 5.1. who are for­bidden to exercise autoritie, or to be as Lords over Gods heritage, or to be caled by such stately titles, Mat. 20.25.26. 1. Pet. 5.1. Luk. 22.25.26. They streyn therfore too farr, vvhich wil proportion the authoritie and power of the Elders that should stand and minister to the Church (as Num. 16.9. 2. Chro. 35.3. did the Preists and Levites:) with the autoritie of the Elders the Magistrates, that Ier. 26.10. late and judged in the gates. 2. The second branch of their observation is, that we must not be strangers from the policie of Jsrael; Ephe. 2.12. &c. I answer, by politie, they mean not, I hope, the inward faith which Israel had: but the outward order of administring in that Church: otherweise they reason neyther properly nor to the question in hand. Yea in this very place the Apostle distinguisheth the politie, from the covenants of promise. And so I deny that wee are bound now to keep the poli­tie of Israel; neyther dooth the Apostle mean any such thing. For he putteth the Ephesians in mind of their estate being paynims, when they were Eph. 2.11.12. uncircumcised, without Christ, without Israels politie, without covenāts of promise, without hope, without God. But now in Christ they were united & brought neer; but wherunto, to circumcision? nay, he sayth elswhere, Gal. 5.2. if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing? or, to the ordinances of worship in the Tem­ple? nay, for he sayth Heb. 13.10. we have an aultar, wherof they have no authoritie to eat, which serv in the tabernacle. Or were they now to goe up, as Psal. 122.4 5. did the Tribes to the earthly Ierusalem, where thrones of judgment were set, thrones for the howse of David? nothing so, for Christ was Dan. 9.24 26. Luk. 19.41.44. to destroy both Citie & Sanctuarie; so to force the Iewes to an end of their po­litie. But now the Ephesians were come Ephe. 2.18 unto the Father, by one Spi­rit, and unto Christ, who verse 15. abrogated through his flesh the hatred, that is, the law of cōmandements, which stood in ordinances; and was Heb. 3.2. faith­ful, as Moses, in al his house: and to be citizens with Eph. 2.19 the Saincts [Page 15] and howshold of God; which are built, not upon Moses politie that is doon away, but upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, that is the 1. Cor. 3.10. &c. doctrine which they taught of Christ and of the ordinan­ces of his Testament, which is Heb. 12.27.28. a kingdome that cannot be shakē, as was the cōmon-wealth of Israel according to the flesh. Look therefore what politie the Apostles have taught and taken from the Law; or Moses & the Prophets foretold should continue under the Gospel, so much wil we reteyn, the rest we leav to Iewes & Iewishly affected. And these are the things which they have answered to the first ob­jection in the Letter: which whither they have proved the Elders now under the Gospel to be the Church which is to judge of syn and synners, and to have power as the Church, in their own hands; let al indifferent men judge: as also what cause they had to conclude that we oppose against Jsrael, Moses and the Prophets, and to cry out a­gainst us as they doo, that such is our error, and so great is our trans­gression and iniquitie. But because of the printed copie, they set up­on us afresh, with many observations, and questions, and by matters, with longsomnes ynough: wheras a few sound arguments, would much better have cleared the controversie, and contented the rea­der. They Advertis. p. 32.33.observ 1. that the scriptures of the old Testament are quoted in our Article, as wel as of the new. 2. That Mat. 18. is to agree with the other scriptures cited. 3. That it must be understood with proportion to the manner in Jsrael. 4. That therfore their understanding is according to the ancient faith; and not ours, who would make them strangers from Jsrael, and would perswade them that Christs doctrine in Mat. 18.17. is a new rule &c.

I answer; these are in effect the things we heard before, and which in my answers I have partly granted, partly refuted. 1. The pro­portion they speak of, is a disproportion concluding from Magistrates authoritie in the Common [...]wealth▪ to Ministers in the Church; which is against Christs doctrine Mat. 20.25.26. And if they wil not learn it of Christ, they may learn it of Cato, an alien from the common wealth both of Israel and of Christ, who yet sayd to such Plutarch. in Cat. Jt becomes yow to be mindfull of your condition, that yow are not Magis­trates but Ministers. 2. It is a mayn pillar of Poperie, to proportion the Church now, in the outward politie to Israel. The Rhemists would have the Rhem. an­not. on Mat 23.2. the see of Rome, in the new law, to be answera­ble to the chair of Moses. Cardinal Bellarmine De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. maketh his first ar­gument for the Popes judging of controversies, from the Preist & [Page 16] Judge that was appointed in the Law, Deut. 17. And as Moses sate as Prince of the Church, and gave answer to al doubts arising about the Law of God, Exod. 18. so by proportion Bellar. de verb. Dei, l. 3. c. 4. he wil have now in the papacie. And in deed, for show, the papists proportion to have one supreme court above al, to end weighty causes and ap­peals; more resembleth Israel, then dooth these mens Eldership in every particular Church. 3. It is an argument that others (except papists) have disclaymed. D. Bilson, (whose learning and goodwil hath holpen the prelacie as much as any mans, and whose understanding of Mat. 18.17. these our opposites in some points doo now follow,) he Perpet. goverm. ch. 4. confesseth that to reason from the Magistrate to the minister, from the sword to the word, from the law to the Gospel &c. the leap is so great, that cart-ropes wil not tye the conclusion to the premisses. Prolect. de Rom. Pont. Con. 4. Q. 8. c. 2. [...] 2. D. Whitakers, Animadv, ad contr. 1. l. 3. c. 4. et ad. cont. 3. l. 1, c. 2. D. Iunius, and others, refuting the Papists, disalow the reasons drawn from the law, and magistra­cie of Israel; which these our opposers make their cheifest bulwark. M. Cartwright answering D. Whitgift, sayth T. C. 2. Repl. p. 614 the argument is not good from civil government to ecclesiastical. When Bellarmine De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9. allegeth the civil Monarchies to justify the ecclesiastical: Iunius answereth, the Animad. in Bellar. ibid. exāple is altogither unlike, of temporal empire and spiritual ministery: be­tween these, there is not, neyther ought, neyther can a proportion or comparison be rightly made. 4. It is an argument that is yet hid, and by our opposites themselves unmanifested how the proportion they speak of, shal be shaped. For in Israel ther were Magistrates in the cities, & Preists and Levits, in the Tabernacle, and Ministers in the Synagogues. Let them shew us who now are proportionable to the Magistrates, who to the Preists; and who to the Ministers in the synagogues. The Magistrates also were of sundry sorts, as Iosh. 23.2. Elders, Heads, Judges, & Officers. The Judges agayn differing both in num­ber and power. In Deut. 16.18. all the cities throughout the tribes, were Jud­ges, (which the Iew [...]doctors call the [...]almud Babylon. tract. San­hedrin, c. 1. lesser Sanhedrin or Session, and say it consisted of 23. Iudges,) and Deut. 16.18. Officers which Maimon. in Sanhe­drin, c. 1. they say were weaponed, and executed the Iudges sentences. In the cheif City Deut. 17.8 9.2. Chrō. 19.8. Ierusalem were also Iudges and Preists, for the weightiest and hard causes: this Talm. ibidem. they caled the great Sanhedrin, or Session, and it had Num. 11. [...]4. &c. 71. Iudges, of whom first Moses was cheif, and suc­sessively, one caled Maimon, ibidē. Nasi the Prince, next whom they place Ibidē. A [...] beth di [...], the Father of the judgment hall, besides other officers as [Page 17] two Scribes to write the causes of the condemned & the absolved: Maimō. Sanhedrin. chapt. 15. Sh [...]lc [...]h [...]th din, the Messenger (or Angel) of the Court, even as ther was also in other cases Shelia [...]h [...]sibbur, the Messenger or Angel of the Church or Congregation, in the synagogues: wherunto it may be thought that in Rev. 2.1. &c. hath allusion. Agayn they make an other court Talmud Sanhedr. c. 1. of three, for lesser strifes and mony matters▪ caled d [...]ies m [...]monoth: the lower Synedrion of 23. judged matters of life and death di [...]i nephashoth: & the high Senate of 71. judged weigh­tiest matters of state, of warrs, of a Tribe, of a False prophet, of appeals brought &c. Also among the Preists and Levits, ther were 1. Chron. 23. & 24. &. 25. & 26. chapt. divers orders and functions, some chief, some inferior, some ministring in the sanctuary by course, some overseers and judges, some Musicians, some Tresurers, some Porters &c. In the syna­gogues ther were Act. 15.21. alwayes lecturers and preachers of the law and prophets, in every citie, and in Ierusalem it self were Act. 24.12. many syna­gogues, besides the Temple there. Now they that would pro­portion their power with Israel, showld shew whither they mean al these fore-spokē, or but some. They should tel us to whō the Pastor is proportionable, to whome the Teacher, to whom the ruling Elders. And seing they wil have that rule in Mat. 18. to be as it was in Israel, they should tel us to which of those Synedrions, or Preists, or Rulers, Christ sendeth. Whiles these things are not clea­red, but we are told generally of a p [...]oportion with Israel, we are led as in the clowds; and know not into what errours we may fall.

5. They referr us in the beginning of their Treatise on Mat. 18.17. to a place in Mat. 5.22.23. &c▪ where Christ (they say) teacheth the offending brother how to cary himself, as in Mat. 18.15. &c. he dooth the brother offended: & that in both places Christ sheweth to whom the offender may be brought, viz, to the Church or Congregation Mat. 18.17. to the Sy­nedrion or sitting of Elders, Mat. 5.22. which must be eyther all one with the other, or ells how should his hearers then understand him, or these things then be observed, or these two places be reconciled?

I answer; Christ might farr better be understood then, then our opposites may now: his words are cleare, but not to the purpose that they cite them. Christ there speaketh not of men judging on earth, but of Gods judging in heaven. For men had not power to condemn to Mat. 5.22. hel fyre, there spoken of: neyther could they by Mo­ses law, condemn a man to death for unadvised anger, as Christ there [Page 18] God would doo: neyther was every mā, that caled his brother Ra­ka, to be brought to the Synedrion at Ierusalem, the lesser courts in the cities, could hear and end such matters. The Iew Doctors say, Talmud Bab. tract. Sanhedrin. c. 1.that such as bring an evil same on their neighbours, were to be judg­ed, by the Court of 3. or by that of the 23. but for the high Synedrion, both they and Moses Exod. 18.22. Deut. 17.8.9. law shew it was for the more weighty and difficult cases. Our saviour in Mat. 5. interprets the law otherweise then did the scribes. They sayd, verse 21. whosoever killeth shalbe culpable of judgment, that is, he should Exod. 21.12. dye by Gods law: and further then outvvard actual murder they went not. But Christ sheweth 3. kinds of kylling otherweise then with the hand: the least wherof, even Mat. 5.22. unadvised anger, should be punished with death by God; and as it did increase and shevv it self in evil speeches, so should their punish­ment be increased in hel: which he setteth down by allusion to the sundry civil judgments in Israel. And so he procedeth to teach men the true keeping of the law, by love and reconciliation; with­out which they should be cast into verse 25. the prison of hel: how ever such synns were not punishable by men. But in Mat. 18. Christ speak­keth of judgments Mat. 18.17.18. on earth, in this life; and that not of the civil punishments by the Magistrates sword; but of verse 18. binding and loosing by the word of God, to be performed by verse 17. the Church, that is, (as Paul 1. Cor. 5.4.5.12. sheweth) the ecclesiastical assembly gathered in Christs name. Wherfore the church in Mat. 18▪17. is not the Synedrion in Mat. 5.22. as these would have it. Or if it be, then is it meant of the Magi­strates, and not of the church ministers, unto whom these would now draw it. For, were Luk. 4.20. the Ministers and preachers of the law in the synagogues; judges in the synedrion? Sheliach Isibbur, Ange­lus ecclesiae, the messenger of the Congregation, was he the cheif of the sy­nedrion, as the Pastor (vvho they say is Angelus ecclesiae) is now cheif in the Eldership? If Christ must needs speak to the understanding of the Ievves, and order his Church like their cōmon vvealth; ther must be more then one court or Synedrion; and he could not give that to Mat. 18.20. 2. or 3. gathered any vvhere in his name, vvhich belong­ed to the Senate of the Realm.

6. So vvheras they say we would perswade them Christs doctrine in Mat. 18.17. is a new rule which Jsrael had not: I think it wilbe good for them to yeild unto this persvvasion. For the Elders in Israel, to vvhom they In their Treat. on Mat. 18. referr us, by Psal. 82. Josh. [...]0.4.5.6. Num. 35, 12.24.25. [Page 19] 29. Deut. 19.11.12.16.17. and other like places, being Magistrates, that had povver of life and death; if Christ sendeth unto such, the Ministers of the Church, I hope vvil not intrude into their places. Wherfore eyther let them acknovvledge the Heb. 8.8. nevv Testament, to have nevv rules and ordinances: and that the kingdome being changed aswel as the Preisthood, there must needs be Heb. 7.12. a change of the law therof also: or els, let them leave it to the Magistrate, vnto vvhom it belongeth.

Next this, they give us Advert. pag. 33. a distinction between the sentence of excō ­munication, and between the execution therof. As in Jsrael, the Elders, & Preists, had a rightful power to giue out the sentence of death & of leprosie ac­cording to the law, without asking the peoples consent, yea though it should have been without and against it; Deut. 1.16. & 17.8.12. & 24.8. with 2. Chrō. 26.16.20. Levit. 13. &c. and then it was for the people to perform the execu­tion accordingly: so the Elders now may by office give out the sentence of excō ­munication according to the law of God, & the people should accordingly put it in execution, by avoiding the excōmunicate persons til they repent. I answer; this comparison is faulty many wayes. First, it speaketh onely of a rightful power, wheras the thing they should answer to, is both right­ful and able power, as themselves once distinguished: or let them say, whether the Church that Christ sendeth to for redress of syn, hath not able power to excōmunicate. 2. Secondly it matcheth the power of the Ministers in spiritual things, with the power of the Magi­strates in civil things: which what is it, but to make the one Lords spiritual, as the other are Lords temporal; according to the Popish hierarchie? 3. Thirdly it misseth in the proportion of the Preists judging leprosie; for Gods law in Lev. 13.2. is, that the suspected person should be brought to Aarō the Preist or to one of his sons the Preists; and the verse 3.6. &c.Preist should look, and pronounce him unclean, or clean, as he discerned it. The proportion hereto now, is one Bishop or Minister, rather than a Church of Ministers: for if one Preist might judge then, why may not one Minister judge now? Doe not the Papists, which Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 8.allege this very example, and apply it to one Preist: make a fitter proportiō, then they that deny this power unto one, and yet apply it unto many? 4. Fourthly, thus farr I grant this proportion, that as every Preist then might according to the law, declare what was leprosie: so every Minister now, may and ought by the law to declare what is syn and heresie; and this though it be [Page 20] without and against the consent of the Church & of all the world. Ezek. 3.17,—21.2. Tim. 4..1.2. Tit. 1.9. But as then, not the preist onely, but the Num. 5.2. children of Israel, put every leper out of the host: so now, not the minister onely, but the childrē of Christ, the church, are to 1. Cor. 5.12.13. put the wicked out frō among them, as the Apostle shew­eth. 5. Fiftly, if the Elders the Magistrates, might (as these men say) give sentence of death against a man, though without and against the peoples consent; & then it was for the people to perform the execution: then that people, I say, were in great subjection and servitude to their Elders, that must execute that man, to whose death they cō ­sented not: and to shape the Ministers power now accordingly, is to make them Lords, and the Church their subjects and servants: yea the Pope himself never had men in greater slaverie. I know, when Gods law condemned a man, if it were shewed by all or any one of the Iudges, or Preists, or Prophets, yea or Israelites; the peo­ple should in order have executed him: but oft times the heads of the people Mich. 3.11. judged for rewards, the Princes Zeph. 3.3 4. Isa. 1.23. as Lions, the Iudges as Wolves devoured them, the Preists polluted the sanctuarie, and wrested the law. And then the people of the land, Levit. 20.2.4. whose duty al­so it was to look to open wickednes, were neyther to folow Exod. 23.2.7. the many nor mighty in evil. And that the Iudges had power to put any man to death, whom the people judged innocent, I find not, but would see it proved. I find how in Naboths case (though it were a wicked fact,) ther was 1 King. 21.12·13. a solemn fast and assemblie of the people with the governours: how in Ieremies case, he was accused Ier. 26.11.12.16. to the Princes and people, made his defense to princes and peo­ple, and was acquitted by princes and people. When 1. Sam. 14.39.44.45. King Saul sware that Ionathan should dye; the people sware the contrary, & saved him from death: when the high preists & scribes would have kylled Christ, they feared the people, Luk. 20.19. & 22.2. and the people as wel as the rulers, were caled before Pilate about Christs death, Luk. 23.13. and by their voices prevayled, Mat. 27.20.22.25.26. Luk 23.23. So that to prove the Ministers sole power now, for to cut off a man from the Church, by the Magistrates power then to cut off a man from Israel, neyther is the proportion just, if it were so, neyther yet is it manifested that so it was in Israel. 6. Sixtly, the proportion which they here make, is so misshapen; that I marvel wise men would ever bring it forth to the view of the [Page 21] world. For they make the avoiding of the excommunicated person by the people, to be the executing of the sentence of excommunication; wher­as this censure is properly executed by him that in the name of Christ and with consent of the Church, delivereth the wicked man to Satan, as the Apostle willeth, 1. Cor. 5. which being doon, the man is certaynly excommunicated, whither the people avoyd his com­pany or not. And if they otherweise here understand the word execution; they doo but deceiv the reader with an aequivocation.

This their other example of the sentence of death, and the execution therof, wil plainly manifest. For Pilate Luk. 23.24. gave sentence of death upon Christ; the Ioh. 19.23.34. souldjers that kylled him with nayles and spear, they executed the sentence of death, as we commonly speak and understand. Then vers. 38.— 43. Ioseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, embaulmed him with myrrh, wound him in a sheet, and layd him in grave: shal we say that these two now were the executioners of Christ; because they caryed themselves towards him as towards a dead man? Or if any refreyned from touching a dead man that had been hanged, least by him they Num. 19.11.should be polluted: did they here by execute him? No more doo they properly execute the sentence of excommunication, which avoyd the company of one excommunica­ted. 7. But because al the weight of their wrested proportion frō Israel, is couched herein: let us look upon it a litle more. In their Treatise on Mat. 18. there pag. 19. they say: in Jsrael, such as would not hear­ken to the Preists and Judges, were to dye by the hands of the people, Deut. 17. Agayn they say, ibid. p. 20. delivering to Satan, in 1. Cor. 5. is in sted of death in Jsrael. Levit. 20.11. By this, one would think, that the people now should deliver a wicked man to Satan, when the Elders have judged him worthy: otherweise, how stands the proportion? But they mean nothing less: for a litle after, they ibid. p. 26 tel vs, in the Churches excommu­nication, ther is the giving of a sentence judiciarie, which perteyneth to govern­ment and authority; there is also in particular, a delivering to Satan, by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ &c. which likewise implieth authority; & that it is proportionably answerable to the taking away by death &c, that it is a spe­cial use of the keyes given by Christ to the Apostles; that the force herof is such, as therby a man is not onely cast out of that particular Church wherof he was a member, but is cutt off & excluded from all churches vpon earth: as on the contrary by baptisme, wee are entred into communion with al Churches of Christ in the world. By these things compared togither, we may [Page 22] observ: 1. that the church elders may by their sole authoritie give judiciarie sentence, that a man shalbe excommunicated: answerable to the Magistrates in Israel, that gave sentence a man should be put to death. 2. That the Elders may also by authoritie in particu­lar deliver a man to Satan by the power of Christ; which is proportiona­bly answerable to the taking away by death: which in Israel, themselves grant, was to be doon by the hands of the people. Thus doo the Elders now chalenge by proportion in the Church, that which be­longed both to Magistrates and people in the cōmon wealth. But because they fear the Act. 5.26. people, they shape them this deceitful pro­portion, that their avoyding the excommunicate person, is the executing (or putting in execution, as they ambiguously speak) of the sentence: answerable to the peoples stoning of a malefactor in Israel; how fit­ly, let al that have understanding judge. For whether the people avoid him or not, the man is judged and delivered to Satan, and so cut off from the church: as on the contrary, when one is bapti­sed by the minister, whether the people keep company with him or not, he is made a member of the church: and as a man behead­ed in Israel, was surely dead, whether the people refreyned from touching him or no. 2. Agayn they give no more to the people of that Church wherof he is a member, then to the people of all o­ther churches, that are bound to avoid the excōmunicated person, as wel as they. 3. Yea they give hereby their people no more power, then the Pope dooth to his marked servants; for he also wil have the people avoyd such as he dooth excōmunicate: and if this be the boasted right and libertie of the people, they had as much in the greatest bondage of poperie, as now when they are caried thus blindfold by propertions. But they tel the people, Advert. pag. 34. that if any can except against the Elders proceedings they shalbe heard. I answer, First before whom and unto whom, shal any man except against the Elders: is it not before and unto the Elders themselves? And is it meet that they should be judges in their own cases? In Israel when any complayned of wrong in the Synagogues or Cities, ther was an Deut. 17.8 9. 2. Chrō. 19.8.10.higher Court to control unruly Elders, and to help the oppressed. But now 2. or 3. Elders in a Church, bearing themselves upon their forged authoritie from Mat. 18.17.20. may be lawless; and who shal let them in their proceedings? Secondly, how should the people except, when by these mens doctrine, they are not bound [Page 23] to be present at the hearing and deciding of the controversie: wil it not be a just blame upon them, if they except against a matter, which they have not heard discussed? Thirdly, when the party ac­cused shal except against the Elders proceedings, (as commonly he wil doo, for if he acknowledged himself to have synned, he should not need to be excōmunicated:) may the people now re­quire to hear the case debated between the Elders and him? nay, they plead in their Treatise on Math. 18. saying, pag. 16. But where hath the Lord appointed a rule of further proceeding, beyond that of the Elders & governours, for hearing the brethrens causes, and judging between a man and his brother? &c. And agayn, the Elders also are the Churches officers, &c. so as when they have heard, examined, admonished, and iudged according to the word of God, it is to be estemed as doon by the Lord and the Church &c. Thus let the mā except what he wil, the judgm ^t is at an end, the Lo: hath doon it, the Church hath doon it, because the Elders have doon it: and it must be presupposed, that they have doon it according to the word of God, though the man except never so much: and though the scriptures foreshew of judges that were Zeph. 3.3. wolves not sparing the flock, and latter dayes abundantly confirm the same. And thus when a Naboth is condemned by wicked Elders, if any except on his behalf, they wil Isa. 2 [...].2 [...].take him in a snare that reproveth in the gate: perhaps he shal hear it sayd, by what authoritie doo you speak? &, are you one of the Church spoken of in the 1 [...]. of Matthew? for the Elders have power to deal with him also that shal except, and can easily bring him within the compass of a contentious person, or an oppugner of gover­ment, and cast him likeweise out of the Church; that a man some­time were as good take a Lion by the paw, as except against the El­ders proceedings.

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

And for the further clearing of it, seing ther were diverse gover­nours in Israel, as the Num. 18. Preists and Levites in the Temple; the [Page 24] Luk. 4.20ministers in the synagogues; the Deut. 16 1 [...]. Elders or Magistrates at the gates of the cities, and these also divers and of unequal power, as before pag. 16. is shewed: I ask of them agayn, whither now the Elder­ship of every church, be proportionable in power and goverment, unto al those governours: and if not unto al, unto which of them?

2. Secondly they ask, whither the people have any more right and au­thoritie in the churches goverment now, then the people of Jsrael had in those dayes. I answer, they should not seek to intangle by ambiguitie of terms. First, we give not to the people goverment, as before pag. 10. I have shewed, but a right and power to Mat. 28.20. observ and doo al the com­mandements of Christ, touching his prophetical preistly and kingly office, by the Elders teaching guiding and governing of them in the Lord. 2. The goverm ^t in Israel was diverse, by Magistrates in the gate, by Preists in the sanctuarie, by ministers in the syna­gogues. To the Magistracie, al Christians are to be subject Rō. 13.1. now, as they were then: for it is an 1. pet. 2.13. humane ordinance, tending to civil peace, and concerneth al men whither within the church or without, indifferently. The external Preisthood of Israel, is ac­complished in Christ and now abolished, Heb. 7. yet in Davids Kingdom, and Levies preisthood, ther was Ier. 33.21.22. a figure also of the kingdom and preisthood that Rev. 1.6. Christ bestoweth on the saincts. Who have as much more power and libertie in the Gospel now, than the Iewes had; as the heyr when he is of yeres, hath more then in his childhood; Gal 4.1.2.3. yet alwayes in order, and with sub­mission to the ministerial goverment of their Heb. 13.17. Leaders. And I ask of these agayn, whither the Christian Magistrates now, are not to have their voices with the ministers of the church wherof they are, in the admonishing & censuring of synners ecclesiastically, and in other publik questions and controversies of religion.

3. Thirdly they ask, Whether the people of Jsrael were not Kings and Preists &c. as wel as the Christian people are now, Exod. 19.5. Psal. 149.1. &c. with 1. Pet. 2.9.10. Rev. 1.6. I answer, first as touching the cōmunication of their external kingdom and preisthood, it is evident, that the Israelites were not so the natural seed of David & of Levi, as Christians now are the spiritual seed of them in Christ, Jer. 33, 22. Secondly, for communication with the spiritual king­dom and preisthood of Christ by them shadowed, the Israelites were Kings and Preists as well as we, but with differences. For Is­raels [Page 25] state and ours, are not simply opposed, yet doo they differ in manner & degree. They were Kings and Preists as they were Chris­tians, and partakers of the Anoynting, and that is, as they were under the nevv Testament. But they were Heb. 8.8.9. &c. not so under it as we are: neyther are we so under the old Testament as were they. They were heyres of the heavenly things, but as children, and so (as Paul Gal. 4.2, 3.sayth) under tutors and governours, & in servitude under the rudiments of the world, until the time appointed of the Father, that is until Christs comming. The scriptures which they quote, doo confirm this. For the promise in Exodus 19.5.6. is legal, if they kept Gods cove­nant; as in another place Levit. 18.5. if they did his statutes, they should live by them, which Paul Gal. 3.12. sheweth to be a speech of the law, not of the gos­pel. Now that condition, Israel Heb. 8 9. kept not, neyther Rom 8.3 could: ther­fore not the law, but Christ hath made us Kings and Preists, Rev. 1.5.6. and until Christ came, Israel was kept under the law, as under a Gal. 3.23 24. scholemaster, & had an external preisthood, which could give them no Heb. 7.11.19. perfection, and therfore is abolished, and our state much bettered, as is shewed at large, Heb. 12.18, 19, 20.21, 22. &c. as the prophets also foretold, Jsa. 61, 5, 6. Jer. 33, 15.—22. Mal. 3.3.4. & of this estate under the gospel, is the 149. psalm a prophesie, (though in their mesure they then also fulfilled it,) and the place of Peter confirmeth it. Whereunto we may add the testimonie of the Iewes Rabbies touching their estate, vnder that scholemaster of the law. Maimon. in Treat. of the dis­cipline of the law; ch. 3. With three crownes (say they) was Jsrael crowned: with the the crown of the law, and the crown of the preisthood, and the crown of the kingdom. The crown of the preisthood was bestowed upon Aaron and his seed, Num. 25.13. The crown of the kingdom, was bestowed on David and his seed, Ps. 89.36. The crown of the law, loe it is appointed stablished and confirmed unto all Jsrael, as it is written, Moses cōmanded vs a law, the inheritance of the congregation of Ja [...]kob. In that they al had the law to use so freely, & were so restreyned frō the kingdom & Preisthood; it argueth their childhood: yet might they see by faith their inheritance in those types: how all Christians should by participation of Christs Ioh. 2.27. an­oynting, be that seed of David and of Levi, promised Jer. 33.22. Rev. 5.9.10. & 20, 6. And here I also ask of our opposers, whither the Ministers of the Gospel, be Kings and Preists now, by their office of ministery in the Church.

4. Fourthly they ask, whether the Churches power be not a ministerial [Page 26] power onely. I answer, the power it self is 1. Cor. 5.4 5. Christs; and so royal or kingly: but al that the Church dooth, is onely to administer that power, under Christ. And I ask of them agayn, whether they think the Elders have the whole power, which Christ hath given to his Church.

5. Fiftly they ask, whether the Elders power be not ministerial, under the Lord, in and for the Church. &c. I answer, an ambiguous questi­on cannot be answered til it be cleared. First this word power is large, and they must shew how they limit it: for by comparing this question with the former, they seem to put al the Churches power into the ministers hand; which I deny. They have also misshapen the proportion of their power from the Magistrates of Israel, as be­fore we have heard; contrary to Christs commandement, Mat. 20, 25, 26. 1. Pet. 5.3. Secondly the vvord ministerial is also diversly u­sed: in a special sense, the Officers onely are caled 1. Cor. 4.1. Ministers; in a general sense the whole Church are Isa. 61.6. 1. Pet. 4.10 11. 1. Cor. 14, 31. Act. 13.2. Ministers, and doo admi­nister and dispose the manifold graces of God: & the word Cohen, Preist, given to all saincts, dooth properly signify a Minister. Third­ly for the Elders function, I grant it to be ministerial under the Lord, in and for the Church; but also unto, yea and under the Church secon­darily, as the Ioh. 3.29. 1. Cor. 3.22 23. spowse of Christ, in that sense that Paul speaketh, the spirits of the Prophets are subiect to the Prophets, 1. Cor. 14, 32. And I ask of them agayn, whether the Ministers of the Christian so caled, Iam. 2.2. syna­gogues now, have any more authoritie, then had the Ministers in the Iewes synagogues, or then they to whom it was sayd, Serv the Lord your God, & his people Jsrael. 2. Chron. 35, 3. Ezek. 44.11. But here (before they have our answer) they conclude, that therfore ther is no weight in our obiections about the Elders power, as if it were not the chur­ches &c. I answer, first they conclude not the question set down in the article, but because it was too heavy, they leav it and turn to other matters. Secondly they conclude with an aequivocation in this word power, which is not in the same sense to be applied to the Elders, as it is to the body of the Church. Thirdly the Iesuites doo in this wise conclude also for the Pope. For the power & govern­ment vvhich they dispute for, is not Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 5. absolute, but such (they say) as may be in ministers and stewards, 1. Cor. 4, 1. And that the povver vvhich the Pope and prelates execute, should be the Churches povver, it is the thing that they ibid. c. 6. vvould have. So vvheras our op­posites [Page 27] tel us of the Elders power that in deed it is the Churches; the papists also tel us the same: but the more is their syn that deprive the Church of it, by ingrossing it into their own hands alone; thus did the Pope clime by steps unto his primacie. And it is (say they) to be ministred by the Officers: but not (say I) by them onely; therin is the deceyt. The whole Church is a Exo. 19.6. 1. Pet. 2.9. kingdom of Preists, that is of ministers: who are to be Heb. 13.17. guided and governed by their Officers, (caled also Colos. 4.17. ministers in more special manner,) for the holy and orderly practise of the power. And thus the Prophets foretold the state of the Christian Church, saying, Isa. 61.5.6 strangers shal stand and feed your sheep, and the sonns of strangers shalbe your plowmen and dressers of your vines; but ye shalbe named the Preists of the Lord, & men shal say unto you, The Ministers of our God. Where the Officers of the Church are cō ­pared to pastours & husbandmen, (as the new testament also Eph. 4.11. 1. Cor. 3.9. cō ­firmeth,) vvhich should be of the converted Gentiles: and the Church it self, is the Lords 1. Pet. 2.9. Rev. 20.6. preisthood, and his Ministers.

Sixtly they ask, whither we in the Churches goverment, as the Ana­baptists in the sacraments would not make them aliens from the cōmon wealth of Jsrael, &c. I answer, this was in their fourth observation before, and p. 14.15.there is by me answered, I trust without absurdity, or ungodly­nes, errors or evils, all which they here insinuate against us, for to fyll up their mesure. But here agayn the reason deceiveth the reader, for in sted of cōmon-wealth or politie, they bring in one body, one Lord, one faith of theirs and ours: &c. Ephe. 2. &c. Al this we grant: but the outward politie & goverment, we deny to be the same, it being chan­ged by Christ both for Citie & Sanctuarie, Dan. 9.26. There was al­wayes one Lord & faith of the Church: but not alwayes one politie. The kingdom and preisthood were first executed by one person, as in Gen. 14.18. Melchisedek: afterward these functions were divided, & Kings might 2 Chron. 26.18. not doo the Preists work. Also the civil government in Isra­el was Deut. 17.14. 1. Sam. 8. changeable, somtime without a King, sometime with one: yea sometime by hethen Kings, as Nebuchadnezar, Cyrus, &c, to whom the Israelites were bound Ier. 27.6.8.12. to be subject, but not so in their sacraments: that ther is no just consequence to be drawn frō the one of these to the other. We rather may ask of our oppo­sites, whether they as the Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. Papists would not draw us frō the testa­ment of Christ, (vvho was Heb. 3.2. faithful as Moses in al his house,) to the Ievvish politie novv abolished. And let them tell us vvhether ther [Page 28] may be novv Archbishops, over other Bishops and Ministers, as in Israel there were Archpreists Nū. 3.6.32 Nehem. 12 7.12. over other Preists and Levites; or a superior court 2. Chron. 10.8.10. to hear the appeals from particular synagogues & cities now, as was then: and whether the ministers of the Church, now, may be captayns of politik armies, as 1. Chro. 27.5.1. Kin. 2.34.35. Benajah son of Ie­hojada the cheif Preist, was general of the feild in Ioabs room? Such orders have been heretofore in Israel.

Seventhly they ask, why we speak not of our selves, what we pleaded to be the church spoken of Mat. 18, 17. &c. I answer, because our plea is already set forth in sundry books, as the Pag. 242.243. Discovery, the p. 75. — 81. Re [...]i­tation of M. Gifford, the p. 60.—64 Apologie, p. 61.74. the Treatise of the Ministerie a­gainst M. Hildersh the p. 55.56▪ Answer to White &c. And I ask of them agayn, why they answer not the things already published in so ma­ny treatises, but fish for more matter by subtile questions, as if men had nothing ells to doo, but answer al things that they write and demand: and to let them range at wil, without orderly answering as is meet.

They say, some of us taught it to be the whole church, alleging to that end Num. 15.33. & 27.2. and 35.12.. I answer, first, we taught then no otherweise then as them selves taught heretofore with us. Secondly we alleged many other scriptures and reasons both Ruth. 4.9.11. Ps. 149.6.—9. Ier. 26.11.12.16. Mat. 18.18.—20. & 28.20. Act. 15.22.23.30. & 11.2. &c. & 21.18.— 22.1. Cor. 5 4— 13. Rev. 2.7.11 29. from the Prophets and Apostles, though it please them to omitt those, and cull out these against which they think they have more colour to contend. For hereupon they thus argue, 1 Jf this rule be found in the book of Numbers &c. then it is not a new rule first given in Mat. 18.17. I answer, they wrong us, and would deceiv the reader: we alleged not those scriptures to prove the rule to be the same then and now; but to give light unto the question, by shewing what was the peo­ples right then, under the law, and under the Magistrate: which may be more, but can not be less now under the gospel, where the church ministery, hath not Math. 20.25.26. 1. Pet. 5.3. the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage. The Apostle applieth many things from Aarons preist­hood Heb. 5.4. & 9.6.7. & 13.11.12. to Christ: yet he maketh Christs preisthood not to be af­ter Aarons order Heb. 7.1 [...].12. [...]5. but Melchisedeks: should men now thus carp at his allegations?

Then they say, those scriptures speak of civil goverment, which we ex­cept about the Elders, but they suppose we wil not give to the people civil au­thoritie. I answer, first them selves grant that the people have as [Page 29] much right and power now as they had in Israel: but we deny, & they can never prove that the ministers now have as much autho­rity over the people, as had the Princes of Israel: so our reasoning is good, though theirs be naught. Secondly for civil authoritie as we never chalenged it: so neyther should it be objected to them, but that they wil have it to be no new rule. Then say we, it must be left to the Magistrate, and ministers may not intrude into their place. And seing they thus urge it, let them, if they please, clear them selves, whither they think not that the Elders of the church, may have civil authoritie also, as had the Elders in Israel.

Thirdly they say, that by these and the like scriptures it is certayn, sinners in Jsrael were brought before the congregation of Elders. I answer, if they mean Elders onely, (as they must if they reason to the mat­ter in hand,) I deny it: and ther is no weight in their proof. For, it is also certayn that Paul imposed hands on Timothee, 2. Tim. 1.6. but elswhere it appeareth, others also imposed hands as wel as he. 1. Tim. 4.14. So, the Apostles and Elders came togither about a controversie, Act. 15.6. but the whole Church came togither also, verse 22.23. Titus was left to ordeyn Elders, Tit. 1.5. but was he to doo it, himself alone? The keyes were promised to Peter, Mat. 16.19. but were they meant to him onely? In Rev. 2.1. Iohn wrote to the Angel (or Messenger) of the church: but by Rev. 1.11. & 2.7. it is plain the whole church was intended. So in Israel, the law sayth in a case of mariage, let her goe up to the gate to the Elders: Deut. 25.7.8.9. but the practise of this sheweth, that the people were also interested with the Elders, Ruth. 4.2.7.9.11. Jn Exod. 5.1. Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, but by Exod. 3.18. we may gather that the Elders of Israel went with them also. So in the place cited Num. 15.33. they brought him to Moses and to Aaron, and to al the Congregation; the people are here meant with the Magistrates, for God then sayd, vers. 35. let al the congregation stone him; and vers. 36. al the Congregation brought him without the host and stoned him. Now by M. Iohnsons own grant, they whom the Iudges condemned, did dye Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 19. by the hands of the people: who is it then that cannot see, the Congregation here to mean both Elders and people? So in the other place, Num. 27.2. when they stood before Moses, and Eleazar the preist, and before the Prin­ces, and al the Congregation, this distribution of the persons, togither with the place, the dore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; may shew [Page 30] that the Elders onely were not meant: besides in the same chapter, Iosua being there ordeyned over the Congregation &c. it cannot with any colour be gathered, that the Elders onely were the congregation, Num. 27.16.17.19.20. &c. Wherfore when one scripture men­tioneth the Elders, Jos. 20.4. and an other the Congregation Num 32.12. Jos. 20.6. we should not restreyn it to the lesser, but let the scripture have the largest sense, unless apparant reason doo urge a restreynt, which is not here, but the contrary. For if they were to dye by the hands of the people, conscience required the people, to hear their cause tryed also, seing the law charged every one, Exod. 23.7 thou shalt not slay the innocent and the righteous: and it was not safe for them to trust their Iudges, which so often and so many wayes corrupted judgment Isa. 1.23. 1. Sam. 8.3. Zeph. 3.3.as al the prophets doo complayn. It is therfore an evil argument to say, in Israel by one scripture men were sent to the Elders, & by an other to the Congregation, therfore it was the congregation of Elders, and not of the people also. For by such wrested reasons, one might prove that the Elders onely were bound to keep the passover, because in one place it is sayd, speak to all the Congregation of Israel, that every man take to him a Lamb, Exod. 12, 3. and in an other place it is sayd, Moses caled al the Elders of Israel, saying chuse out & take for every of your howsholds a Lamb; Exod. 12, 21. ther­fore it was meant of the Congregation of Elders, and so the other peo­ple were not bound to this service. Agayn, it was cōmanded, Ex­od. 19, 3, 5. tel the children of Jsrael, if ye wil hear my voice and keep my covenant, ye shalbe my chief treasure &c. afterwards it is sayd, Mo­ses caled Exod. 19.7. for the Elders of the people, and proposed unto them al these things: shal we now conclude, therfore the covenant was made with the Elders onely? Who seeth not the weaknes of such conse­quents: and that it is usual in scripture, to name but the principal of a company, and yet to include others with them? Notwithstan­ding between Israel and us, there were two mayn differences, the one, that Church ministers now, have not such ecclesiastical autho­ritie over the people, as is proportionable to the Magistrates auto­ritie then: for this is forbidden, Mat. 20, 25. vvher Christ sayth, the rulers of the nations have domination over them, and they that are great exercise authoritie over them: but it shal not be so among you. And 1. Pet. 5.2, 3. Feed the flock of God &c. not as having domination over (his) heritage. The other is, that they vvere a national Church, & the Magistrats [Page 31] in the gates of Ierusalem, the Preists in the Temple, being for the whole Realm; it could not be that al the people should be present at the dayly judgements of the Magistrates, or sacrifices of the Preists. And therfore it vvas not required so of them; as novv it is of us, vvho are but particular Churches, to be present at al publik administration of Christs kingdom and preisthood. Yea even in their most solemn assemblies, they could not doo, as vve ar bound to doo. For they did eat the passeover Luk. 22.10 11.12. &c. in their private hovvses, because al the thovvsands of Israel could not eat it in one room: but vve are bound to eat the passover now (I mean the Lords sup­per) in 1. Cor. 11 20. &c. the publik Church, and not otherwhere.

Wheras therfore they next except, that the people were 600. thow­sand men, and would we have them to think that they came togither to hear examine and judge the cases of syn &c. I answer, no: neyther al the El­ders. For I have before shevved, there were divers officers, for se­veral causes. And Boaz took but Ruth. 4.2. ten of the Elders of Bethlehē to hear his cause. The Elders also did meet by themselves as ther was occasion: and so are Act. 21.18 they to doo now. Secondly for this ex­ception of so many thowsands in the wildernes, that could not come to hear and judge: they should mind how the same lyeth a­gainst the execution. When God sayd of the blasphemer, Levit. 14.14. let all the Congregation stone him: wil they say six hundred thowsand men came together to doo it? yet themselves grant this vvas to be doon by the people. It vvas as easy for them to come to hear his cause tryed, as to come and stone him: and care of equity taught them to doo the first, as vvel as the last, as before is shevved.

Next they except against our expounding the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 18.1. &c. to be the church under the gospel, since Christ: this they say is not sound, because the same phrase is spoken of the church of the Jewes, Mat. 22.2. &c. I answer; this their reason is unsufficient, for I could so except against the exposition almost of any scripture, by shewing a diverse use and meaning of the words. When th'Apostle proveth Christs excellencie above the Angels, because Heb. 1.4.5 of his name, the Son of God: the Iewes might allege, that the Angels are also caled Iob. 1.6. & 2.1. Sonns of God, yea holy Deut. 14.1. men have the like title: but were this a sufficient answer? Wel, I wil not st [...]ive with them, about the phrase (although in some places they may see the Kingdom of Hea­ven opposed to the state of the Iewes church, as Mat. 11.11) but [Page 32] as the prophets tel us of Isa. 65 17 & 66.22. 2. Cor. 5.17. new heavens under the Gospel, so wil I distinguish and cal the Iewish church the old heaven, (as that which is Heb. 12.26.27. shaken and removed,) and the Christian church the new heaven; of which the Gospel usually speaketh, as Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Mat. 3.2. & 4.17. Now vvhen the disciples asked Iesus, Mat. 18, 2. who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? ther might be reason of their demand touching the Christian church then to be planted: but to ask such a thing about the Ievvish church; I see litle reason. They knevv already the state of it, and vvho vvas cheif therin. Secondly Christs ansvver leadeth us here­to: for ther being great expectation of that Kingdom, and an er­roneous persuasion that it should be a glorious vvorldly state, Christ tells them the contrary, that it vvas for the vers. 3, 4. converted and humble sovvles to enter into: that many scandals and offenses should arise herein, both from v. 7. the vvorld, and from mens cor­ruption v. 8. in them selves, and from v. 15. &c. their brethren. Against al vvhich he armeth his disciples, and teacheth the orderly vvay to redress them. And that his rules should not be despised, he assu­reth them that their censures executed on earth, shalbe ratified v. 18. in heaven: the ground vvherof is his v. 20. name vvherin they should be gathered togither, and his presence in the mids of them. And this phrase of Christs name, leadeth us also evidētly unto the church under the gospel: for it meaneth the clear manifestation of Christ with the power and profession of him, as Act. 2, 38. & 3, 16 & 4, 12, 17. 2 Tim. 2, 19. In respect wherof, Christ sayd to his disciples, hi­therto have ye asked nothing in my name, Joh. 16, 24. These rules therfore, doo most properly serve for the Church since Christs comming: & therfore he sendeth not his disciples to the Iewes synedriōs, much less to the hethen magistrates, for redress of the synns that should arise in his kingdom. But our opposites doo except, what is here taught that the Jewes should not observ as wel as we? should not they be humble, harmless, &c. I answer, that which the gospel teacheth touching faith, repentance, humility &c, the Iewes were also bound unto; though these and the like things are otherwise opened and urged now under the gospel, Rom. 16.25.26. but ther was to be an other form and order of the Christian church, than of the Iewish: and in that respect, Moses politie must give place. Ye▪ they proceed and inferr, that the offender if he repent not should be [Page 33] brought to the Congregation of Elders. This I deny in their under­standing, who make this to be one with the Synedrion or Council of Magistrates, in Mat. 5.22. (which place I have also treated of p. 17.18.be­fore,) and I affirm it to be the Christian Church or Congregation of faithful people, the spowse and bride of Christ, with whom his 1. Cor. 5.power is left to judge al synners within the same; their Elders gui­ding and governing them in their judgments. For the outward form of the Iewish Church was abolished Dan. 9, 26. Isa. 65, 17. Heb. 8. & 9 & 10. chap.by Christ; the common wealth of Israel dissolved, and given up to the Romanes, whose Caesar Ioh. 19.15 they preferred before Christ. The Temple Mat. 24.2 ruinated, the ministerie Eph. 4.11 1. Cor. 12. also changed, and the ordinances, though in ma­ny things proportionable with Israel: but for Ministers authoritie over his people, to govern them Magistrate like, it is forbidden Mat. 20.25, 26. Luk. 22, 25. 1. Pet. 5, 3. 1. Cor. 3, 22, 23. and for any church of Elders, the whole new Testament knoweth it not; nor any such practise as these would bring in: but that the same church which 1. Cor. 11.20.—33. came togither to the word and sacraments, came also to­gither 1. Cor. 5.4.—13.to judge and cast out obstinate synners, and were vers. 1.2. all bla­med for the neglect of this duty, as for any other. And for deciding controversies, the Apostles, Elders, and brethren did Act. 15.23 25. come togi­ther with one accord. And such order continued in Churches some yeres after the Apostles, for Tertullian relateth the manner of Chri­stian assemblies in his time, Tertull. in Apolo­get. how they came togither into a con­gregation, for to pray unto God, and for to rehearse the divine scriptures, and with holy words to nourish faith, styrr up hope, and fasten confidence. How there also were exhortations, reproofs and divine censures; and judgment given with great deliberation: the approved Seniors being presidents in the assemblies. And Cy­prian Bishop of Carthage Cypr. l. 3. epist. 14. sheweth how with him mens causes were handled not onely before the Elders but apud plebē uni­versā. the whole multitude: with­out whose consent also, ibid. epist 10. nothing was doon.

Next foloweth their exception about women and children; asking if they should in a controversie be the greater part, whither then they be the church spoken of? Also, whither in the congregation and presence of the El­ders, the women and children have authority by vertue of that rule Mat. 18.17. to examine, rebuke, admonish their husbands, parents &c. for, they that are of the church there spoken of, may examine &c. I answer; first they o­mitt what heretofore wee answered them, when they fished about [Page 34] this matter: namely that the whole church of men women & chil­dren are to be present at ecclesiastical judgments, as at al other publick administrations of the church, wher whatsoever is perfor­med, is doon Act. 6.4. by prayer and the ministration of the word, that al may receiv instruction by the word there ministred, and as is written Deut. 13.11. & 17.13. al Israel may hear and fear and doo no more any such wickednes. But no other to have voices or suffrages in excommunications &c. then they that have voices in election or deposition of officers. And they know wel, it was never our judgment or practise, that in Elections women or children should give their voices, the 1. Cor. 14.34. Apostle and nature it self requiring women to be silent in the church: they also themselves have thus professed and practised with us many yeres. Secondly they have seen Mr. Robinsons answer Iustisic. p. 204.205.206. to M. Bernard (cavilling likewise about women and children,) to the same effect. Yet wil they take no notice of his answer, or of ours; nor make any reply, but thus trouble the world, and us in special, to answer agayn and agayn whatsoever they please to demand. For after in pag. 43. of their book, they are twise up agayn with these questions of women and children, as if we had nought ells to doo, but to answer and answer their tautologies. Thirdly seing they thus deal, to make the truth seem odious, and to set the more co­lour upon their prelacie, imitating the papists and popish affected, they shal have the like things demanded of them, not by us, but by others. Themselves as yet allow popular election of officers, be­cause they say Adver [...]. p. 46. to give voices in election is not a part of government, but a power right and libertie that the saincts and people out of office have and should use. Now those of the prelates faction which deny this power of the people, say thus unto them; D. Cou­sins, answ. to the ab­stract. p. 99▪ 100. By this reckning men women and children (for al the faithful be interested) shal have voices in election of their ministers; if any dissent, al must be dashed. Jt had been very requisite that our authour for the appointing of these Democratical elections the better unto vs, should with proof out of scripture for every particular have shewed whether wo­men or children of some reasonable discretion, should have voices in election of their Minister? whether he should be chosen by all, by the greater part, or by the better part? whether the wives voice should be accounted several, or but one with her husband, or whether she might dissent from her husband, or the fa­ther from the son? &c. They that compare these two writers, may see how they wrote by one spirit, and almost with one pen. Yet be­cause [Page 35] in this point of popular election they doo differ: wee leave it for our opposites to answer these demands to the Prelates; and then if need be, they shal hear further of us, touching popular excō ­munication. Fourthly, if some would thus cavil against Moses lavv, which requireth Deut. 13 9 10. the hands of al the people to stone a wicked man; and ask, whether women also and children must be present & cast stones: he might have as good colour for his question as have these, if not better. For these say, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 19. in Jsrael, such as would not hearken to the Preists & judges, were to dye by the hands of the people: and the proportion that they cast for the people now, is Advertis. pag. 34. that they shal put the sentence in ex­ecution, by avoiding the excōmunicated persons. Now, I think, they wil have women yea and children also, to avoyd excōmunicated persons; so then by proportion, women & children in Israel must cast stones at malefactors. Yea this may be further urged against them, by rea­son of a pregnant note which they give in their pag. 8.9. Treatise on Mat. 18 that that is such a church, as where women may speak & are to be heard in their cases and pleas as wel as men, but, it is not permitted to women to speak in the Churches of the saincts, &c. wher eyther they aequivocate with this word speak, using it in divers senses, (a cōmon Aristot. in reprehens. Sophist. prac­tise of such as would deceiv,) or they must permitt women to have voices and suffrages as wel as men, in al their churches of Elders: and so, by their proportion, women were to cast stones in Israel. For if women are to do execution now, why not then also?

5. Now wheras they intimate to the reader, as if we vvould have al men examine, rebuke, admonish in the presence of the Elders; they doo but labour the disgrace of the holy order in the church: wher the Minister as the mouth of the congregation, propoundeth exa­mineth and carieth matters: and then the people if there be de­fect or default, may speak in due order, but if in matter or manner they transgress, they are to bear their rebuke. Al things in the pu­blick judgments of the church being caried holily, peaceably and by the government of the Elders, even as in elections of officers, in prophesie, or any other thing wherin men have libertie for to speak. And when the Ministers cary things well, we commonly find it as in Act. 15.12. that al the multitude keepeth silence: otherwise strife (and sometime disorder) dooth often arise, by the evil deal­ing of the Elders. 6. It is also to be observed how these our opposites wil require by their proportion from Israel, children [Page 36] to stone their parents, wives their husbands, and servants their maysters, by avoiding their cōmunion: yet wil they not have thē to be of that church which is to hear, examine & judge of the cau­ses why their parents, &c. should be stoned and excōmunicated; not bound to be present at the trial of their case? Did ever any cō ­mon wealth in the world require such execution at the hands of wives children and servants; and yet teach them so little to honour and regard their parents, as not to think themselves bound to hear their case tried, but upon the Elders report, to stone their own fa­thers, husbands, maisters, which doo take it on their death that they are innocent?

Against 1. Cor. 12.21.—26. which was by some alleged, they ex­cept, 1. that the Apostles purpose is not to speak of cases and pleas about syn, and of the manner of dealing therin: but of the diversity of gifts and fun­ctions, given for the help and service of all, to the building up of the body of Christ. I answer; 1. the Apostle speaketh generally of the vers. 4▪ 5.6. di­versities of gifts, Ministeries, and operations in the church, as they are given to to vers. 7. every man to profit with all; and nameth in particular the vers. 8 &c.gifts, operations and ministeries, and among the rest the vers. 28. gover­nours or governments: and ther is no church action, which the A­postle purposeth not in that his dispute to comprehend: their first exception therfore is not true. 2. Neyther dooth it agree with it self: for if he speak (as they confess) of the diversity of gifts and fun­ctions given for the help and service of all, to the building up of the body of Christ: then can he not but speak of cases and pleas about syn: seing they are to be judged by the gifts and functions 1. Cor. 5.7 12. of the church; they are for the help and service of Iam. 3.2. all; they help to Gal. 6.1. Ephe. 4.12. —16. build up the bo­dy of Christ. Vnless they would have us think, that the Elders pre­lacie which they strive for, is none of those gifts or functions, nor for the help and service of all, nor for the building up of Christs body but of Antichrists: this we wil grant them to be true.

2. Secondly they except, the Apostle sheweth it by the similitude of the natural body and faculties; and applieth it to the feeblest members, even the yongest children newly baptised, vers. 13▪ [...]22. to whom he appointeth not the cases of syn to be brought to judgment and censure, as we hereupon would inferr. I answer; in thus speaking they injurie us, and the truth it self. Would we inferr, that the judgmēt of syn should be brought to infants newly baptised; because we say, not the Elders onely but [Page 37] the church is to judge, as Cor. 5.12 Paul teacheth? And would th'Apos­tle also inferr (think they) that infants should rebuke and judge un­beleevers, because he sayth, 1. Cor. 14.23.24. when the whole church is come togither in one, if al prophesie, and ther come in one that beleeveth not, he is rebuked of al, & is judged of al. And did Iosua also mean, that the yongest children newly circumcised threw stones at Achan, be­cause he sayth, Ios. 7.25. al Jsrael stoned him? we had not thought wise men would ever have made such inferences. And what vveight is in their reasoning from infants? that if other besides Elders may judge synners, then infants: if not infantes, then no other but Elders. Might not men thus elude al Pauls arguments? As when he sayth 1. Cor. 12.7. the manifestation of the spirit is given to every one to profit withal; they to conclude, therfore the yongest children newly baptised can mani­fest the spirit to the profit of others. We have bene verse 13. all made to drink into one spirit: therfore infants also were partakers of the Lords sup­per. vers. 26. Jf one member be had in honour, all the members reioyce with it: therfore even the sucking babes▪ for they also are members. But did not these men think to find babes of us, that they have given such an answer to our allegations?

3. Thirdly they except that this similitude, might likewise be applied to Jsrael: which we grant. Also we acknowledge that it may not ey­ther then or now pervert Gods ordinance about the Elders hearing &c. They say, the governours are set in the Church for that use: I answer, not the governours onely: this is that which they should prove. They are to govern the Church in al actions, but not to doo them alone. Also they say, al members have not fit gifts for examining of persons, deci­ding of questions &c. I answer, that is true, for infants (as they ex­cepted,) have not. But that onely the Elders have fit gifts for such purposes, is untrue: the Act. 25.22.—25. scripture, and dayly experience tells us the contrary: yea some other mēbers may have fitter gifts then the Elders. And they thēselves that now are officers, had they not gifts fit to examine judge decide &c. before they were chosē into office: or did their election give them gifts, which had none fit before?

4. Fourthly, they wil have this scripture direct against us; in that it sheweth how some have a more cheif place then others, as the head and eyes & hands in the body. This is not against us at all, for we grant so much. But they say we litle regard it, who in cases of controversie wil look where the greatest number of people is, (though they may be of the most simple) and [Page 38] wil have them to be the church, and to have the power &c. as if the multitude should stil be folowed, and that ther were no difference of gifts, of office, or other respect at al to be had. I answer, 1. they keep their wont, in abu­sing us before the world: we look not in any case to the greatest num­ber, eyther of people or Elders: but in al cases we look to Gods law and testimonie as we are Isa. 8.20. commanded; vvhich vvhen it is shevved by vvhom soever, al ought to yeild unto. We knovv neyther the multitude, Exod. 23.2 neyther yet the mightie or Rabbies are stil to be folowed; there are differences of gifts and offices in the church, yet no mans gift or office (no not though he vvere Gal. 1.8. an Angel from heaven,) may ca­ry us from the vvritten vvord, by vvhich the Godly people tried e­ven the Apostles doctrine, Act. 17.11. and vvere commended. Although therfore the Church hath that libertie vvhich al societies (that have none to exercise dominion or authoritie over them) have, namely that the greater number overswayeth the lesser, when al accord not: yet the faithful are not so to look unto or folow the greater number, as to decline from the least of Gods commandements. This we may see in the 12. tribes of Israel, where the greater nūber, even ten of the tribes fel to false worship, and they caried away with them, not onely the tribute of 2 King. 3.4. Isa. 16.1. 2. Sam. 8.2. two hundred thowsand lambs and ramms, which were due yerely from Moab to the Kings of Iu­dah, & were wrongfully chalenged and taken by the Kings of Sa­maria: but caried away also the title of the Church, being usually even by al the Prophets Ier. 3.8. Ilos. 4.15. 1. King. 12.19. & 15.9.16.17. &c. 2 Chron. 10 16, 17. &c. named Jsrael, wheras Iudah and Benja­min were Israel as wel as Ephraim and the rest, yea in deed they were the onely Israel of God, as the scripture Ps. 7▪3.1. & 125.5. Gal. 6.16. Rō. 9.4.6. counteth Israel. Yet did not the faithful respect this greater number, but left 2. Chron. 11.16. them with their title, and usurpation, and went to the lesser part which was the better.

2. But is it not strange that these our opposites wil object these things to us; when in some things they doo the same, and in their new establisht hierarchie much worse? For in their popular electi­on of officers (which they stil allow, if it may continue,) must not the greater number of voices cary the thing? And yet there is no action of the church, that needeth more wisdom, government or circumspection then this. And therfore many precepts are left for the careful and holy performance of it, 1. Tim. 3. & 5. Tit. 1. And wil not the Papists now cast the reproches on their own faces, as [Page 39] they that would have the multitude stil folowed, as if there were no diffe­rence of gifts &c.

3. And touching their hierarchie the Eldership they wil not I think deny, but the greater number of voices among them must prevayl. Now that being so, a Church having a Pastor, and a Tea­cher that are learned, and 3. or 4. ruling Elders, which are as un­learned as the other of the people, taken of trades men and the like: these 3. or 4. Rulers (whose power they have proportioned with the Princes of Israel,) shal by their number of voices cary matters, though it be against Pastor, Teacher, and 500 brethren. Yea these may excommunicate or depose the Pastor and Teacher, and cast out of the brethren: but none can excommunicate them, or depose them joyntly from their offices. The utmost that we can find these men to allow In their Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25. the Church in these exigents, is when they have doon al they can, to separate from them: and this power any man hath in the church of Rome. But I hope every one that [...]avour­eth the things of God aright, wil abhorr such an unruly prelacie. For if these Elders prove such as Paul foretold of, Act. 20.2 [...] 30. greevous wolves not sparing the flock, but speaking perverse things to draw disciples after thē; & as the Church hath had woeful experience of, now so many hun­dred yeres: what havock & miserie wil not they bring upon Gods people? And if we add unto this their other opiniō of Gods cove­nant to continue with a Church, though they fall into so many horrible synns, idolatries & blasphemies as the Romish synagogue hath doon, which now they plead for to be stil the true church of Christ: what wil not a presumpuous Eldership doo, and yet bear out themselves with this that they are the true church, and al that leave them (for what cause soever) are schismaticks.

4. Let the reader also observ their manner of pleading, when they speak of the Elders proceedings, they annex, according to the Law of God: but speaking of the people, they annex, p. 28.40. though in er­ror, and though never so erroneously caried, and though they be of the most simple: as if they would perswade men, that the Elders usually through their wisdom and godlynes walked aright, and the people through simplicitie and errour went astray. Wheras if eyther the scriptures be searched, or humane histories, or the present state of churches be looked upon, we shal see the greatest errours, heresies, schismes and evils to have both arisen and been continued by the Elders, [Page 40] preists and learned Rabbines in al ages: even Christ himself found no greater enemies then the Mat-26.3 4. & 27.1. &c. high preists, scribes and rulers of the people, which turned to his reproch then, (wherof his church now is made partaker,) so that they sayd, dooth any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees beleev in him? but this people which kn [...]w not the Law, are cursed. John. 7.48.49.

5. Neyther (if it were true) dooth their supposition that the Elders wil judge according to the law, bear out their supremacie, which Christ Mat. 20.25 26. hath forbidden. For (besides that one man may judge ac­cording to law,) both the princes of 2. Chron. 19.5.6. Israel, and the princes of Plato de repub. l. 4. & 5. other nations, were bound to the lawes prescribed: yet may not the ministers now by proportion have princelike authoritie, 1. Pet. 5.3. The philosopher could say Aristot. 3. Pol. c. 11. They that bid the Law bear rule, doe bid God to bear rule by his own voice: but they that bid man bear rule (mea­ning without law) doo bid a beast to bear rule.

6. Here also they doo violence to the Apostles similitude of a body, and say, p. 41. when a part of the body is hurt, the hand is not used nor sought unto to see withal, nor the foot to hear, neyther dooth the head take them to consult and determine what to doo, but when the head it self hath considered and determined, then it useth the help of the hand or foot &c. as ther is need and occasion. I answer, 1. first much abuse may be offred to al parables, by wresting them beyond their general scope, as is here to this. For by this manner of reasoning the Elders as the head, have al the wit, and the people as the hands and feet, have none at al. The Elders as the eyes, see al things: but the people see no more then the ears. For if the people have some understanding and insight into matters as wel as the Elders, why should they not be used also in consulting and determining publick things which cōcern al. Vnless the Elders now have such abundance of wisdom, as they can afford ynough to al, and need supply from none. But the scripture tells the contrary, saying, who is sufficient for these things? 2. Cor. 2.16. And what meant the Apostles and Elders of Ierusalem, to have al the people with them at their consulation & determina­tion of a controversie, Act. 15.2.—22, 23. And why did th'Apostles being the eyes, speak to the multitude, (which it seemeth saw no more then doo the hands and feet,) to look out men of wisdom, for office among them? Act. 6.2.3. But what if there be of the peo­ple that see more then all their Elders, being illuminated as was [Page 41] David Psal. 119.99.100. by Gods precepts: & what if the Elders be blind guides as Mat. 15.14 Christ caleth some, & without understanding, Isa. 56.11as the prophet cōplay­neth? Then men must leav the blind Eldership, and goe to the pru­dent brethren, and they must consult and determine, yea without the Elders, if these men say true. Doe not these things manifest how they have wrested the similitude? 2. Secondly, it is di­rect against the Apostles meaning: who because of dissentions in the church of Corinth, sheweth 1. Cor. 12 by that similitude of a body, that the chiefest members have need of the inferiour, and the head verse 21. can­not say to the feet I have no need of yow: but now the Elders can say to the people, we need not your help to judge and determine questions and controversies, this gift and duty is ours; neyther are yow bound to be present to hear and decide publick causes; but when we have judged, you shal execute our judgments. And if the people agayn should say to the Elders when they are about choise of officers, we need not your help, or counsel: you are not bound to be present when we doo this busynes; the feet have no more need of the eyes to goe, then the eyes have of the feet to see. Were not this to make a division in the body, verse 25.which th'Apostle there condemneth. 3. Moreover, it is vayn to think that any officer or brother in the Church should so be one special member of the bo­dy, as that he cannot be an other. The Prophets in Israel were 1. Sā. 9.9. Seers, and so in sted of eyes in the head: but when they Lā. 2.14. looked out vayn things, then as the Lord saith, the Prophet that taught lies, was the tayl▪ Jsa. 9.15. The Elders, by directing the church in the right way, are as eyes to the body; by administring the sacraments and censures, they are as hands; when they are sent on the Churches message, they are as feet; when they reprove synns, they are as the mouth, when they are reproved for their synns, they should be as ears; and so other Christians in their places and imployments. And as God hath bestowed his graces upon any, so is he to be regarded of al, without respect of person: neyther should the Elders be min­ded like Achitophel 2. Sam. 17. and take it yll, if at any time their counsel be not folowed. A man may see that in the Church, which Solomō saw in the beseiged citie, Eccles. 9.13 14. &c. a poor wise man, that delivered the citie by his wisdom: though both he and his wisdom were despised. A 2. Sam. 20 16. &c. wo­man in Abel when it was in danger to be spoyled, verse 22.perswaded al the people with her wisdom to cut off Shebaes head; and so preserved [Page 42] the city. Was she in this action, a part of the foot, or of the hart and head in that body, may we think? 4. Finally, this their reasoning is one with the Iesuits, that exclude the people frō church affayrs. The Church (sayth De sacra­ment▪ in gen. l. 1. c. 25. Bellarmine) bindeth and looseth, but by their Prelates, not by whomsoever: even as the body speaketh, but by the tongue, not by the hand. Thus dooth the Cardinal answer M. Luthers argu­ment, and thus doo these men answer ours.

6. Yet have they not sayd ynough, but they will make it pag. 41. Anti­christian servitude, to have the people bound to come to the publick ecclesiastical judgements; unless perhaps when the Elders call them togither to execute their sentence, for then I trow they are bound to come. And is not this agayn to divide the body, when the head must be present, and the showlders with the other parts and mem­bers may be absent? The Apostle writing to the Church of Co­rinth, how to doo when 1. Cor. 11.18.33. they came togither for the Lords supper, writeth also to them how 1. Cor. 5.4 5. when they were gathered togither, they should deliver the wicked unto Satan. We find no difference, but they were bound to come to the one as to the other. And if they answer, they are bound to assemble for to excommunicate him, but not to hear him by the word convinced in the trial of his cause; they may as wel teach the people they are bound to come to eat the bread and wine in the Lords supper, but not bound to hear the word teaching and preparing them here unto. We doo so un­derstand Gods law, that when it commandeth us any thing, it dooth also command us to use al means for the right and holy per­formance of it: and al wil be litle ynough. The people therfore that were bound to stone an idolater in Israel, were bound by that law Exod. 23.7. thow shalt not slay the innocent, to look that he were duly convic­ted of the crime: and now by this law, 1. Tim. 5.22. be not partaker of other mens synns, keep thy self pure, every sowl that is bound to cast out a man condemned for heresie or other syn, is also bound to see him con­victed, least 3. Ioh. 9.1 [...]. Diotrephes cause to cast out faithful brethren. He that stands out to excommunication, wil cōmonly plead his cause to be just; and complayn that the Elders have perverted judgmēt: with what comfort of hart can the people now excōmunicate him, if they have not heard the proceedings against him, and yet must execute the Elders sentence upon him? Let wise men judge whither this be not spiritual tyrannie which the Elders would bring upon [Page 43] the consciences of the Church.

But they allege further, the Elders are to have maintenance for the do­ing of it and of the other duties &c. I answer, let them then excōmu­nicate alone, as wel as try the case alone: seing they have mainte­nance for both, and let the people be bound to come to neyther: no nor to the Pastours ministring of the word and sacraments (if this reason be good,) because he is more worthy maintenāce than the ruling Elders, as th'Apostle sheweth. But then, they say, 1. Tim. 5.17.18. men must leav their trades, women their families, children their scholes, ser­vants their work, and come to hear and judge cases that fall out between bro­ther & brother. I answer, 1. First they restreyn things too much, when they say between brother & brother: for what if it be a publick case of heresie or idolatrie, as that mentioned Deut. 13, 12, 13, 14. &c. wil they say women children and servants were then, or are now bound to leav their callings, & come togither to trie out the matter? 2. Se­condly many cōtroversies between neighbours, are for civil things of this life: such are Luk. 12.14 not church matters, nor there to be heard, but by Rom. 13. Magistrates, or 1. Cor. 6.4.5. arbiters chosen. 3. Thirdly for doubt­ful cases ecclesiastical, people are to inquire the law Mal. 2.7. at the Preists mouth, and to ask counsel of their Elders severally or joyntly, who are to have their Act. 21.18. meetings apart for such and other like ends: so many things may be composed without trouble of the Church. 4. Fourthly, when apparant synners so convicted by witnesses, are to be judged by the Church: ther is no time more fit then the sab­bath day; wherin all men are Exo. 20.10 bound to leav their own works, & tend to the Lords, of which sort this is. Or if that day suffice not, they may take any other for them convenient: for unto publick affayrs the Church is to be assembled, 1. Cor. 5.4. Act. 14.27. & 15.4, 30. & 21.18.— 22.

Against this I know, they except saying, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 17. who can shew such an ordinance of God? find we such a course used in Jsrael on the Sabbath dayes? Did they not meet on the Sabbath, in the temple and synagogues for Gods wor­ship &c. and the Elders sit in the gates on the week dayes to hear controversies &c.

I answer; for this later point they bring not any one scripture to confirm it: yet wil I not strive ther about, for I think it is true▪ Sure I am, the Ievves canon lavves so declare; R. Ios. Ka­ro, in Cho­shen [...]a­mishpat, tract. de Iu­di [...]. ch. 5. Jt is not lawful (they say) to judge on the Sabbath, or on a festival day: yea further, that Maimony Tract. San­hedrin, ch. [...]1. mat­ters of life and death may not be judged on the evening of the Sabbath, or on the [Page 44] evening of a festival day, least [the accused] be found guilty, and it be impossible to kyl him on the morow. I account civil controversies, of things perteyning to this life (as 1. Cor. 6 4. Paul caleth them,) to be of our own works, which by the law, Exod. 20. [...]. are to be doon in the six dayes: and therfore think it not lawful for Magistrates to keep courtes or Assises, to judge and execute malefactors on the Sabbath. And this, among other things, sheweth a mayn difference between the Eldership of the Church, and the Magistracie of Israel. But for ecclesiastical works by preists or people, they were to be doon on the sabbaths, as Ioh. 7.23. circumcision, Num. 28.9. with Le­vit. 1. kylling, slaying, cutting and burning of sacrifi­ces, which was very laborious work, and even a Mat. 12.5 breach of the sab­bath in outward shew, but that the different nature of the action made it blameless. Now the church judgments are the Lords works, not ours, and therfore fittest to be doon on the Lords day: they belong to Christs kingly office, and therfore are holy, as the works of his prophetical and preistly office. These our opposites them­selves Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26. compare the casting out by excōmunication, with the con­trary receiving in by baptisme. Al churches baptise on the Sab­bath, and also excommunicate on the Sabbath: why should not the cause be heard, as wel as the judgment executed on that day? We find, ecclesiastical controversies were disputed on the Sabbath dayes in Israel, as the Apostles practise sheweth, Act. 13.44.45.46. & 17.2.3. & 18.4. It was lawful on the Sabbath to Luk. 13.15.16. heal the body: and is it unlawful to heal Psal. 41.4 the sowl? It was lawful to save a Mat. 12.11.12. sheep from dying in a ditch: and is it not lawful to Iam. 5.20 save a sowl from death, and cover a multitude of synns? Seing therfore the Sab­bath is to be sanctified by the word of God, and prayer: and al that the church ministers are to doo, belongeth unto these, as th'Apos­tles teach us, Act. 6.4. we think it is too Pharisee like to carp at church judgments on the Sabbath: and then servants (which are 1. Cor. 7.2 [...]. the Lords freemen) and al other, resting from their own works, may attend to the Lords, without such inconveniences as these would cast in their way. And hitherto of the first point in contro­versie.

The second point of difference: in the Letter.

2. WE had learned, that every true Church of Christ, hath this power to cast out obstinate synners from amongst them, Treat. of the Minist. of Engl. p. 62. Apol. p. 63. & this not onely when it hath officers, but also when it want­eth them: but now we were taught, that a people without officers have not power to cast out obstinate synners. Which doctrine amongst other evils, overthroweth the constitution of the Church that so taught; for it was gathered and constituted by Christians without officers, re­ceiving in the repentant, and casting out the disobedient, wheras by this opinion, they had power from Christ to doe neyther; for they that cannot cast out, cannot receiv in, one power is for both.

With this they joyn out of the printed copy.

6. The 33. article [in our Confession] which our Apologie also con­firmeth, pag. 45. professeth that people being come forth of the Antichri­stian estate &c. are willingly to joyn togither in Christian communion and orderly covenant, and to unite themselves into peculiar and visible congregations &c. These have pleaded, that al are bound to communi­on by vertue of their baptisme received in the Church of Rome, or other Antichristian assemblies.

These things are confirmed by Mat. 18.17.—20. with 28.20. 1. Cor. 5.4.5. and 12.27. & 1.2. Rom. 12.5. Heb. 12.22.28. Mat. 5.14. Phil. 1.1.5- Act. 2.41.42.47. & 17.4. The latter is also confirmed with sundry scriptures and reasons expressed in our foresayd Apologie.

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

1. Where find we in the scriptures, Advertis. p 45. Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 23. that God hath thus layd upon the people without officers to excōmunicate? where is the precept for it? which be the ex­amples of it? or what are the grounds requiring & bearing it out?

I answer, 1. First as their manner is, they would put others to prove, that which by others and themselves Discov. p. 46.242, 243 Treat. of the Minist. p. 62.63.64 hath been proved and approved; and is not as yet by them or any taken away. It is easy for any to dispute and trouble men after this manner. 2. Secondly in that place of their Treatise on Mat. 18. they quote Mat. 2 [...].20. as alleged for a ground: yet they give not any answer to that scripture, but stil call upon us to answer their questions, & write more. Wheras Christ there encōmendeth to his disciples of all nations to the worlds end the observing of all things whatsoever he cōmanded th'Apostles. And excommunication was one of those [Page 46] things commanded, Mat. 18. 1. Cor. 5. Therfore to be observed by a Christian people though they want officers, unless these men can shew some prohibition. Christ requireth to observ al things; these men say, nay, not excommunication: it lyeth now, on them to shew wher Christ or his Apostles have excepted excommunication. But from that place, and by the very same reasons, doo the Anabap­tists deny baptisme of Children, caling for scripture, example, pre­cept, & ground to warrant it, as these doo now in this case.

3. Thirdly, besides al things heretofore written, they have a ground in the article it self, which they neyther doo nor can take away; which is the power that the church alwayes hath to receiv in members: and therfore consequently to cast them out agayn if they deserv it. Which ground if they deny, they in effect deny that ther can be any church without Elders, contrary to the express scripture Act. 14.23. 1. Cor. 12.28. Tit. 1.5. Yea or that ther can be any visible Christians without Elders: for how can they be Chris­tians without Ioh. 15.1.2.3.4. union with Christ? And if men cannot be uni­ted with his members and body, because ther wanteth Elders, how should they be united with him the head? 4. They have it pro­ved a point of false doctrine by Mr Iohnson himsef, to teach that the Church of Christ hath not alwayes power to receive in and to cast out by the keyes of the kingdom. Answer to M. Iakob, pag. 159.160.

2. They secondly allege sundry examples & grounds that it hath been doon by the Lord himself and by his officers, &c. This we never doubted of, but a Church having officers may excōmunicate. Though yet the proof for the Elders wilbe excepted against by the Prelates and such like. For, th'examples of Abraham, of Paul, of Titus, of Timothee, and of the Preist judging a leper, make rather in show for one Bishop, then for a Church of Elders: and so are alleged by Papists, for the Prelacie. The other scriptures doo none of them shew the Elders power to excōmunicate, but to watch, take heed, reprove, admonish &c, al which the Prelates grant to their inferi­our Preists: whom yet they wil not suffer to excommunicate, with out the Bishop or his Official, as these wil not the Church, with­out an Eldership. The examples of excommunicating by the Ru­lers of Israel, I wil turn against them thus: If the Magistrates and people of Israel might not onely punish civilly with death, but also execute a spiritual censure of excommunication upon the consci­ences [Page 47] of evil doers, though they had wanted ministers of the Tem­ple, and synagogues: then a Christian magistrate and people may doo so now, though they want ministers ecclesiastical. And if the Church may excommunicate having a magistrate, it may also do it wanting one: seing the power of spiritual censure dependeth Io [...]. 18.36not upon the civil magistracie, as the state of the Churches in the Apostles dayes sheweth.

3, Thirdly they wil have us to consider how a people can chalenge the ministration of excommunication, more then of the sacraments &c. This we have considered, and find that if the reason be good, the ruling El­ders may not excommunicate, any more then minister the sacra­ments: which whither they hold or no, let them tel us in their next. For they know wel, the Prelates object these things against the ruling Elders, as themselves doo now against the people.

4. Fourthly they say, In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 24. they cannot find in scripture but when the church is caled the body of Christ, or compared to a body, howse, city or kingdom: it is spoken eyther of particular Churches having officers, or of the catholik church, in respect of Christ the head &c. I answer, it appeareth then plainly, they have lost that which they had found; and let them take heed least for not 1. Tim. 6.20. keeping it, God deprive them of finding it any more. But I wil help them, if it may be by their own writing, where this same author sayth, Treat. of the minist. against M. Hilders. p. 63.64. A company of faithful people, (though considered a part by themselves, they be privat men, yet) being gathered togither in the name of Christ, and joyned togither in fellowship of his gospel, they are a 1. Cor. 12 27. Rō. 12.5. Heb. 12 22.28. Mat. 5.14. & 18 17.20. 1. Co 1.2. & 5.4. Phil. 1.1.5. Act. 2.41.42.47. & 17 4. pub­lick body, a church, a citie, a kingdom, and that of Jesus Christ, who is pre­sent among them to guide bless and confirm what they doo on earth in his name, and by his power. So that like as in a city the citizens considered a part, are commonly privat members, yet jointly togither are the corporation and publick body of that town: so is it also in the church of Christ, whither it consist of moe or of fewer, yea though they be but 2. or 3. so as they be joyned togither in the communion of the gospel, and gathered togither in the name of Jesus Christ▪ as before is sayd. These things they have acknowledged: though now it seemeth they have forgot them, or (which is worse,) doo dissemble them. Vnto these I wil add th'Apostles testimo­nie, concerning a howse; 1. Pet. 2.6. Christ, is the chief corner stone: Mat. 18.19.20. and Chris­tians that come unto him, as lively stones are made a spiritual howse, an holy Preisthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Men come un­to Christ by verse 7. Ioh. 6.35. beleef, and are joyned unto him and one to ano­ther [Page 48] by mutual Ier. 50.5. & 32.40. & 31 33.34. Act. 2.47. & 5.13. covenant. The ministers of Christ are as 1. Cor. 3.9, 10. &c. buil­ders of this howse, by preaching the gospel, laying first the foun­dation Christ, then upon him Christian people, Gods building. But if (as often cometh to pass,) the Psal. 118.22, 23. Mat. 21.42. builders doo refuse, yet the Lord without them putteth Christ for head of the corner, and cau­seth the faithful to 1. Pet. 2.4.7. come unto him, and maketh them his verse [...].spiri­tual howse to dwel in them, whose howse they continew to be, not by having officers alway among them, but by Heb. 3.6. holding fast their confidence and rejoycing of hope unto the end. Wherfore these men that can find no howse of God without Elders, must prove that men can not come unto, no [...] continew in Christ, unless it be by ecclesiastical officers, (which they shal never be able to manifest:) or al may see, how they are beguiled with errour, that they can not find things so apparant, and heretofore acknowledged by them­selves. Ther opinion is injurious not onely to Christians, but to Christ himself; whiles they wil not grant him being the corner stone, the head, the king; and the faithful, the living stones his mē ­bers and subjects, to make a howse, body or kingdom; if the El­ders want or refuse: though he as is written, Rev. 2.1. walketh among his Churches and Mat. 28.20 is with them al dayes to the worlds end.

5. Fiftly they say, our controversie was about a Church established with officers: & things concerning people without officers, are left to further conside­ration. I answer, true it is, they sought alwayes to hide their er­rors, and to put off things which pressed them, to further conside­ration, and the Elders having gott the Churches power into their hands, they lysted not to scan the peoples right. But we were ne­cessarily drawn to controvert this point two wayes: first because their errour did eat out the very constitution of the Church wherof they vvere, as shal after be manifested. Secondly because it vvas by themselves acknovvledged that vvhatsoever povver the people hav before; is not to be takē away by their officers; this therfore vvas an argument that manifested the evil vvhich lurketh in their nevv doc­trine. And vvho can soundly discuss any question, if they look not to the foundation; as Christ sayd to the Pharisees, Mat. 19.8. from the be­ginning it was not so.

6. Finally, vvheras vve shevved hovv their doctrine overthroweth the constitution of their Church; as being vvithout povver from Christ, they say, First it were worth the knowing by whom the first man or two [Page 49] men of this church were received in, and by what power. I ansvver, it is true they say; and pray them therfore to shevv by vvhat povver their church began, if they vvould have men acknovvledge it for true, and planted by the povver of Christ Othervveise they must renounce their estate, and begin a nevv. As for ours, it is shevved in our published vvritings, vvhich if they can, let them disprove; as, in Treat. of the ministerie, against M. Hildersh. p. 73.74. Apolo­gie, p. 44.45.46.47.

2. Secondly they say, by our baptisme, as also by accord in the truth, we ar bound to communion in any thing lawful, as God giveth occasion and opportunity. I answer; 1. they here turn from the question: we speak of constitution of a particular church, they tel us of communion by baptism and accord in the truth; which extendeth to al churches in the world, and to Saincts that ar not gathered and constituted in­to any particular church. We speak of a church with power to receiv in and cast out, though it have no officers: they touch not this point, un­less they closely grant us the question, to the overthrow of their opinion. For if they yeild such power and practise, to be a lawful thing in the communion of al such as ar baptised, or doo accord in the truth; they refute themselves: if not, al men may see how they seek to di­vert from the matter in hand. 2. Secondly by their baptism, they mean not onely the true baptisme in Christs church, but the false baptisme in Antichrists, as the article expresseth, and after we ar to scan: which if it be according to the scriptures which they cite, the Eph. 4.4.5. 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & 12, 13. one baptisme, that by one spirit baptiseth al into one body; then are they returned into the cōmmunion and body of Antichrists synagogue, (if the church of Rome be it,) & are bound to communicate even with Friers and Iesuites in any thing lawful as God giveth occasion, and that is, I suppose, to hear them when they preach nothing but the truth, or to pray with them, when they in spirit pray to God in Christ &c. I would be loth to wrong them, their own Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26. words lead me to this, if I gather amyss let them pardon me, & shew their meaning plain­ly: for, Ioh. 3, 21. he that dooth truth, cōmeth to the light. 3. Thirdly, without baptisme there may be a Church entred into covenant with God & one with an other: as all Israel Deut. 29.10,— [...]3. passed into the covenant renu­ed by Moses; when Ios. 5.4.5 al the men under 40. yeres old, were uncir­sed: besides al the women.

3. They thirdly say, it is playn and undenyable that to chuse or give voi­ces [Page 50] in election, is not a part of goverment &c. but an interest power, right and libertie, that the Saincts out of office have and should use &c. I answer,

1. First this is playn and undenyable, so long as it pleaseth them not to deny it: but if they change their mind in this point to morow, as they have doon in the former about the peoples power to excō ­municate, then we shal hear, as we did before, wher find we in the scriptures that God hath thus layd on the people without officers to make electiō? where is the precept for it? which be the examples of it? &c. They tel us it is playn; but not one scripture is brought to shew it: yet is it need­ful, seing they know the Papists and other Prelates deny such electi­ons without officers. The Prelates wil shew them sundry exam­ples, wher it was doon by the counsel, direction and government of officers, as Act. 1.15.21, 22. & 6.2, 3. & 14, 23, 1. Tim. 3, 1.— 14.15. Tit. 1.5. but not one place where a people without officers at­tempted such a work. Wherefore wee wish our opposites not to deal so slenderly, as to tel men it is playn and undeniable, & so to leav it: for we make no doubt, but the sound proof of this point, wil dis­proov their former errour. 2. Secondly, we have upon their bare word, that to give voices in election of officers is no part of government: we pray them in their next to shew, whether then to give voices for deposition of unworthy officers, be a part of government; as also how they prove that to give voices for the reciving in, and putting out of members in the Church, is a part of government, more than the other. 3. Thirdly the reader may observ their covert cari­age of this point, whiles they speak but of giving voices in election: but what say they about giving power of administration to the ministers: who must doo that? or how had these men that, but by the people? And if the people have power in the name of Christ, to say to the elected Pastor, Take thou authority to preach the word &c. or in any other terms to give him pastoral office which had none before; I hope they wil not deny but if that Pastor afterward proov a Act. 20.29 Wolf, the same people may put him out of al his pastoral office: and if they have that power, why also may they not put him quite out of the fold and Church by the power of Christ, that is, excommunicate him? And if it be not lawful for a people to give authority of Mi­nisterie unto a man: how then do these administer, which renoun­ced some of them their former office and preisthood given by the Prelates, and as private men received a nue caling and ordination: [Page 51] others from private estate, were constituted Elders by the people. Is this Ministerie now from heaven, or from men?

4. Lastly they say, seing their doctrine overthroweth not the constitution of the Church of Jsrael, nor of the primitive Churches, it cannot therfore over­throw the constitution of their church, or of any that is accordingly built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets &c. I answer, this in deed is the surest argument of al: save that it is a fayr begging of the quae­stion. For the thing they should prove, is, that their constitution is according to Israel, or Apostolik. For, if Israel or the primitive Churches before they had officers, did or might receiv in and cast out members, and if the people might set up, and depose officers by power from God: then are these mens errors overthrown. If not, but that the thing is unlawful for any then or now so to doo, then is the constitution of their Church overthrown, as that w ^ch did grow up to such estate without power Ioh. 3.27. Heb. 5.4. from heaven, and they are to let it fal, and be Mat. 15.13. rooted up, and come to a better (if they can find it) according to the scriptures. Whether therfore our exception, or their defense be more vayn & frivolous, (as they speak) let the prudent judge.

The 3. point of difference: in the Letter.

1. WE had learned, Confess. art. 23. & 3 [...] Apolog. p. 46, 47. that every Christian congregation hath pow­er and cōmandement to elect and ordeyn their own Mini­sterie, according to the rules of Gods word: and upon such default in life doctrine or administration, as by the rule of the word depri­veth them of the ministerie, by due order to depose them from the minis­terie they exercised, yea if the case so require, orderly to cut them of by excommunication. But now it is by some mainteyned, that the Congre­gation can neyther put into office, nor put out of office unless they have officers to doo both: and can neyther for heresie or other wickednes ex­communicate or depose their Eldership.

With this they joyn the first out of the printed copy: which is as the former.

These things are confirmed in our Articles, by Act. 6.3.5.6. & 14.23. & 15.2.3.22.23. 2. Cor. 8.19. 1. Tim. 3.10. & 4.14. & 5.22. Num. 8.9.10. 1. Cor. 16.3. Tit. 1.5. &c. Eph. 4.11.12. 1. Cor. 12.7.8.14.15.28. Levit. 8. ch. Rom. 16.17. Phil. 3.2. 1. Tim. 6.3.5. Ezek. 44.12.13. Mat. 18.16. And in our Apologie by 7. reasons deduced frō the Scriptures.

[Page 52] Advertis. p. 47.Hereunto they say 1. That the church may excommunicate an officer as wel as any other member. I answer, they yet touch not the point; We speak of the churches ministerie or Eldership in general; they tel us of one in particular: who because ther ar other ministers, he may be censured by them. Bur if a church have onely one minister, and he prove a wolf: they can neyther put him out of office, nor excō ­municate him, by their doctrine. 2. Secondly they say, if al the officers jointly transgress and so persist: then the church which did chuse thē, may also depose and refuse them from being their officers any longer, and may separate themselves from them. But that the people may excommunicate al their officers, they desire to see it shewed from the word. I answer, though they can not deny the Article, yet they seek covertly to cary the rea­der aside. The article speaketh of chusing and ordeyning, and so put­ting into office: they answer onely of chusing: the other they pass by. But let them shew ever any church, where men were chosen, and not also ordeyned and put into office: or that God committed the beginning of such a work to any people, and not the ending also. And why wil they sever the things God hath joyned? In the law; the church had authoritie Deut. 16.18. to make them (that is as the Greek version sheweth constitute or ordeyn, which word Paul useth Tit. 1.5.) Judges and officers in al their cities: and not to elect them onely. 2. The article speaketh of deposing from ministery and putting out of office: they answer onely of deposing and refusing from being their officers any longer: That is to say, as men that have left the church of Rome, have deposed the Pope: for in separating from him, he is their officer no longer. But is he not, trow we, a Pope stil▪ And shal not an Eldership, when the people have doon al this that they speak of, reteyn a ministery stil?

The separation which they tel us of, is thus opened by their own comment, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25. that it implieth the power we have over our selves, wheras ex­communication implieth power and authoritie over others. Thus they allow not the body of the Church power and authority over their heretical Eldership, (though it be but 2. or 3. wicked men,) to cast them out of the Church in Christs name and power, or to depose them from office, but from being their officers. Even thus they them­selves h [...]ve deposed al the Bishops of England long agoe. But whe­ther this be not to aequivocate with the word depose, let wise men j [...]dge: for a litle after they ask Advertis. p. [...]8. whether it can be shewed by any scrip­ture, that any did ordeyn or depose officers, but Governours. Now wheras [Page 53] our [...] & Apologie is confirmed by many scriptures & rea­sons deduced from them, they answer them not, as is meet they should, seing they wil abrogate their former profession, and bring in a new: neither doo they (as they then Apol. p. 48. wrote must be doon) shew some other manner of entrance [into the ministerie] ordeyned by Christ; but thus they labour to confute themselves. 1. The particu­culars of the 23. Article of our Confession being found true in the churches of Jsrael, and of the Gentlies since Christ: the exception made hereabout can not be of weight against this or any other Church established according to the word of God, as those were, but must be also against those Churches withal. What to make of this their answer, as yet I cannot tell: my slendernes cō ­prehendeth not the depth of it. That the particulars of that 23. article, were found true in the Churches of God; I doubt not of it: that is the thing we stand for. That exception should be made by us hereabout, against this or any Church, established according to the word of God as these were: is farr from our thought. What is it then that they have sayd: but an ostentation of the name of Jsrael, their mayn colourable ar­gument, which yet is against them, not for them at all, as our Cō ­fession and Apologie sheweth. In Israel the Num. 8.9.10.whole Congregation was assembled at the ordination of their ministers, and the childrē of Israel imposed hands upon them. This rule we folow: but these our opposites wil not allow churches (unless they have ministers before,) to doo thus: they wil rather have their ministerie from the great Antichrist of Rome, (as after shalbe manifested,) for which they have no shew in the scriptures. For did Israel ever take Egyp­tian or Babylonian preists to minister in their sanctuary? or did the primitive churches ever take any Bishop of the 1. Ioh. 2.18.19. Antichrists that were in there time, & set them by vertue of their Antichristian or­dination over the flock of Christ? why then doo these men so oftē tel us of Jsrael and the primitive churches, unless they think their very names would make us afrayd?

But they except against Num. 8.9.10. saying, by the children of Jsrael &c. are the Elders of Jsrael often meant. I answer, 1. First this being granted, it disprooveth not our argument; for it may be of­ten so used elswhere, and yet not here. When we reason from Heb. 1.8. O God thy throne is for ever, to prove Christs Godhead: the Arians object, that Princes and Magistrates are often caled Gods, Psal. 82. Exod. 21.6. but is that a sufficient answer? 2. Secondly that [Page 54] which these say, is here true, but not the whole truth. [...] Elders, are meant as principals, but not they to be al the congregation: which I thus manifest. The Levites now to be ordeyned Ministers, were taken in stead of al the firstborn of Israel, and not in stead of the first­born of the Elders onely: Num. 3.40.41. The Levits were now to be offred before the Lord, as a shake offring of the children of Is­rael, Num. 8.11. being freely given as a gift of theirs unto the Lord, to doo the service of the Tabernacle of the congregation, Num. 18.6. & 8.16. Al offrings were by those that offred them, to be pre­sented at the dore of the Tabernacle, with imposition of hands, Levit. 1. verse. 2.3.4. &c. For as much therfore as these Levites were offred by al the Congregation (and not the Elders or officers onely,) in sted of their own firstborn: it is evident that not the Of­ficers onely, but the other people also are here meant, Num. 8.10. the rather also for that before verse. 9. and after verse 11. others besides Elders are intended. 2. Secondly they object, how should so many hundred thowsand of Jsrael, eyther at once hear, or doo the things there spoken of? I answer, as wel as they heard and did other pub­lik affayrs in the Tabernacle: unless they think, that al the people never heard or did any thing there. When the whole Congrega­tion of Israel synned, al the Congregation was to bring a sacrifice, Num. 15.24, 25, 26. wil they ask how so many 100000. could doo it? By this reason, nothing at al should ever be doon in Israel by the multitude, eyther for word, prayers, sacrifices &c. And so by their proportion of the Church now, let the people be exempted from word, prayers, sacraments, as wel as from ordination of of­ficers, and censuring of synners: and let the Eldership be al in al.

3. Thirdly they except, if it be sayd some did it for the rest: first, who were those some, but the Elders! secondly, under whom did they it, but under the Lord, who set them over the people to minister and govern in his sted? I answer, first the multitude & not the Elders onely were assembled. Secondly the multitude and not the Elders onely, gave these Levits to the Lord: both these are before proved. Thirdly for the order and manner of giving, Moses governed the action, to him it was sayd, Num. 8.7.9. thou shalt sprinkle water, thou shalt bring them before the Lord &c. and then vers. 10. the children of Jsrael imposed [...]ands: this I understand, not of every particular man, but of some of the cheif for the rest: as the Elders, heads of tribes, cheif fathers of families &c. as [Page 55] when Num. 15.24.25. a [...] the multitude brought an oblation for their syn, the Elders put their hands on the head of the sacrifice, Lev. 4.14.15. Accordingly have wee practised in our ordination of officers (as these our opposites wel know,) some of the cheif of the Church, the ancientest, and fathers of families, imposed hands in name of the rest. Now to their secōd questiō I answer, they did it under the Lord, and for the other people. But this wil not satisfy them, for they say they were over the people to minister and govern in Gods sted, Ex­od. 20.12. Num. 11.16.—30. Deut. 1.9. — 18. & 16.18. & 17.12. & 19.12, 17. &c, I answer, admit that al they which imposed hands were governours, (though that cannot be proved, neyther dooth ho­nour thy father & mother Exod. 20, 12. I am sure, shew any such thing:) yet they did not this thing as a work peculiar to their office of go­verment, neyther do any of the scriptures alledged, shew so much, but the contrary may be manifested. For if they did it as governours, then was it eyther as governours ecclesiastical and ministers in the sanctuarie: but so were not they, for Aaron and his sonns had pe­culiarly that charge, Levit. 8. Or they did it as governours civil, & Magistrates of the cōmon wealth. Which if it be affirmed, then first, Christian Magistrates now (which have civil authoritie equal with the Magistrates of Israel;) may ordeyn and impose hands on church ministers: and so men need not run to Rome to borow a Ministery from Antichrist, as many now doo fansie. Secondly if civil Magistrates may impose hands on Ministers: it wil folow, that the Church wanting Magistrates, may also by the Fathers of fami­lies, or other fittest members impose hands. For it is not proper­ly a work tyed to the magistrates office: 1. because then the chur­ches in the Apostles times wanting Magistrates, could not have had Ministers: but they Act. 14. Tit. 1. had, and yet never intruded into the Magi­strates office. 2. Because the Magistrates sword and office is not subordinate to Christ as he is mediatour and head of the Church, (for so ther should be no lawful magistrates but Christians & mē ­bers of the church:) but Magistrates have their office next under Rō. 13.1. God, to be Iob. 12.24. heads of the Common weales (whether they be mēbers of the church Act. 25.11 or not,) as Christ hath his office under God to be Eph. 1.22 head of the Church: and these two goverments are so dis­tinct, as they neyther may be confounded, neyther doo one take in hand the work peculiarly belonging to another. Christ pro­fessed [Page 56] his Ioh. 18.36 kingdom not to be of this world, neyther medled [...] with the Mat. 26.52 outward sword, nor Luk. 12.14. civil controversies: neyther on the other side, might the Kings of Israel medle with the Preists work, 2 Chrō. 26.16, 18. to burn incense, or the like. 3. Because the works of the civil Magistrates office in Israel, might be performed by hethēs when they ruled over that nation: as appointing of officers, judg­ing of controversies, punishment of malefactors &c. So Nebu­chadnezar the Babylonian lawfully Ier. 27.6..8.12. (as concerning God,) reign­ed over the Iewes, and did Ier. 40.5. set over them a governour, and put some of them to death Ier. 29.22 23. for adulterie & other evils. And the Iewes were bound to obey him and his substitutes, and to Ier. 29.7. pray for his cōmon wealth. But to the Babylonian Preists they might not be subject. Neyther doo I think that our opposites wil say, Nebu­chadnezar and his Princes might give office of Ministerie, or im­pose hands on the Levites in the sanctuarie. Wherfore I conclude that the cheif fathers of Israel imposed hands on the Levites, not because of their office of magistracie (if they had such an office,) as if it could not ells have been performed: but because they were the principallest members of the Church, & therfore by order to doo it before al other, and in the name of al other, which for the mul­titude of them could not perform it: which order al churches now are 1. Cor. 14.40. bound to keep for ever. And this which I have sayd, the words of the text in their natural sense doo confirm, Num. 8.10. the sonns of Jsrael shal put their hands upon the Levites: shewing that they did it not by title of Magistracie, but as Israelites. So also in the other case, when the Elders imposed hands on the syn offring, Levit. 4, 14, 15. it was not a work peculiar to the ecclesiastical Elders: for afterward Chron. 29, 23. King Hezekiah with the Congregation layd their hands upon the sacrifices. Which thing also he did not by peculiar right of his kingly office, but as he was principal of the Church of Israel; for when they had no King, the Church might doo it, by the next cheif mēbers; & an unbeleeving King reigning over them might not doo it. Also if any people returning from captivity, had wanted Ma­gistrates; they were not deprived therby of offring sacrifice for their publik syn. For if every private man might impose hands on his own sacrifice, as Levit. 1.3.4. how can we think that the whole company synning, the cheif fathers might not have impo­sed hands, according to that rule, Lev. 4.15. Yea the word Elders [Page 57] dooth not alwayes (though often) mean Magistrates or ministers by office, but Exod. 10.9. & 17.5. Lev. 19.32. Ezr. 3, 12. Ioel. 2.16.28. Prov. 20 29. 1. King. 12.6.8.sometime ancient in yeres.

The other things which they allege, about the varietie of phrase, as they doo not disprove the thing forespoken: so make they no­thing for them. They say such as are caled Elders, Lev. 9.1. are ca­led children of Jsrael, Lev. 9, 3. this is true: for who ever doubted but the Elders were sonns of Jsrael as wel as the other people. But if they bring it to prove the Elders or Officers onely to be there in­tended, I deny it: the whole chapter after manifesteth the publick church to be meant. For when Aaron had offred his own vers. 8. syn-of­fring, and verse 12.burnt-offring; then offred he the verse 15, 16.18. peoples syn-offring, and their burnt-offring, and their peace offrings: and after lifted up his hands to the people and vers. 22. &c. blessed them. This was one of the most publik assemblies, and who would ever dream that the Elders onely were here expiated by sacrifice, and blessed of the Preist? they might even as wel say, the Elders onely did keep and eat the passover; cō ­paring Exod. 12.3. with Exod. 12.21. where one verse sayth al the congregation, and an other, al the Elders.

The next exception of the Septuagints translating the sonns of Js­rael in Greek the Eldership: is not of weight, though the translators should have minded as doo their Commenters. But they purpo­sed not hereby to exclude the people, any more then in 1. Sam 8.4. they would exclude the Elders: where when the original text sayth, the Elders of Jsrael came to Samuel, they translate it in Greek, the men of Jsrael. So the Elders of Jabesh, 1. Sam. 11, 3. the Greek caleth the men of Jabesh. Of like weight are their observations about the word Church or Congregation, which being but once Pro. 26, 26 turned in Greek the synedrion, they In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 7. skore it up, as making for their Eldership: but though it be once, twise and thrise turned 2 Chr. 30.24. & 31.18 Exod. 12, 6. Ier. 31, 8. Ezek. 17.17 & 23.46, laos, plethos, ochlos, that is, the people, and multitude; they can let them places pass, and say never a word. Moreover touching this place in hand, Num. 8, 10. the Greek version as wel as the Hebrue it self sayth, the children of Js­rael, shal impose their hands vpon the Levites: so that their exception here standeth them in no sted.

Finally they observ the clauses in the article, according to the rules in Gods word, and by due order &c. which as they bind them to shew by scriptures, that the people not being in office may choose their officers, as is proved there & in Apol. p. 46.47. so they bind us to shew like rules practise or warrant of [Page 58] ordination, deposition and excommunication. I answer; first if a man would except as they doo, he might ask them how they prove that people without officers may by due order choose any into office: for in the scriptures which they stand upon, al things were doon by the counsel, ordering and goverment of the officers, even the election it self, Act. 6.2.3. & 1.15.—22. & 14.23. &c. Secondly their new devise of having their ordination successively frō Rome, is neyther according to the rules in Gods word, nor by due order, nor by a­ny example in Israel; no though Rome were as true a church as they now plead her to be. For that the ministers of one particular church should ordeyn officers for an other church, is more unor­derly then when every church ordeyneth them in it self: the Apos­tles and Evangelists had their offices in al churches, so have not Pastors. Magistrates are limited within their own precincts: and the Maior or Bailive of one corporation, hath no jurisdiction in a­nother. So should al ministers be bounded within their own char­ges, and not chalenge catholik authoritie in al churches, as dooth the 2. Thes. 2 8. lawless usurping man of syn, Antichrist. Thirdly, the scrip­tures and reasons in our Articles and Apologie, serv also for the or­dination and deposition of ministers; though it please these men to pass them over in silēce, because they are too heavy for them to lift. In our Apologie pag. 43. there are 6. arguments, and in pag. 47. six other arguments confirmed by scriptures, as the reader may see: til our opposites answer thē, we think it needless to set down more.

Fourthly, we hold it necessary that al church actions be orderly caried, eyther by the officers if ther be any, or by the Magistrates as in Israel, or by the Fathers of families, or the most excellent in gifts requested therunto by the congregation: this we firmly main­teyn, against al popular confusion and disorder whatsoever. And M. Iohnson himself hath expressly defended this truth heretofore against M. Iaakob, pag. 210. that where people first come to the order of Christ, imposition of hands is to be doon by the fittest among them, being therunto appointed by the rest of the church, alleging Num. 8.10. though now he useth for defense of his contrary error, the Iesuites answers. For even so dooth Bellarmine turn away the reasons of the pro­testantes, saying, De Rom. Pont. l. 1. [...].6. the people did never ordeyn nor create ministers, nor give them any power, but onely named and designed them. Act. 1. & 6.

The 4. point of difference: in the Letter.

4. WE had learned that none may execute a ministery but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand Mini­sters, Cōfes. art. 21. unto such offices and in such manner as God hath pre­scribed in his word. But now these wil execute a ministerie, which have not rightly been caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers, accor­ding to their own account and doctrine: which hold (as before) that a people without officers have no warrant from God, to make or depose Mi­nisters.

With this they joyn, out of the printed copy.

3. The 29. article (of our Confession, as also our Apologie pag. 51.52.) professeth that the hierarchie of Archbishops, Lord bishops, Preists &c. are a strange and Antichristian Ministerie and officers, not instituted in Christs Testament, nor placed in or over his church. These have placed over them, one that was made Preist by a Lord bishops ordination, so as because of it, they did not ordeyn or impose hands on him, when at the same time they ordeyned and imposed hands on others, whom togither with him they set over the Church.

5. The 32. article (wherto our Apologie agreeth pag. 52.53.54.) testi­fieth that al such as have received any of those false offices (of Lord bishops Preists &c.) are to give over and leave them: and so hath it been practi­sed here before by al such Preists as came to our faith and Church. Now one is Minister over thē, ordeyned Preist by the Prelates, as is before sayd.

The Confirmation of these points in our Apologie (besides the scriptures quoted in our Confession,) is of the one by 8. of the o­ther by 12. reasons deduced from many scriptures.

Hereunto they make these answers. First, that this point is of like nature with the 2. & 3. here before, where therfore see the answers. And there also let the reader see our replies. But they would blind their reader with shew of answer, where none is. For the first point was of every Churches power to cast out obstinate synners: the secōd of their power to elect and ordeyn officers. Now what are these to justify any unlawful ministerie, eyther set up by a people without the power of Christ, or received by the tradition of Antichrist? It had been their part, seing they deny their former grounds, to have shewed us some better by the scripture: which how they have doon eyther there or here, let their writings being viewed manifest.

Secondly, they say if wee would here imply a particular matter concern­ing one of their Ministers, about imposition of hands, that is a point also left [Page 60] to further consideration, &c. I answer, no, we mean others of them that were Ministers before, and such as have had (some of them,) imposition of hands twise: and this they could not but see plainly to be our intent in that 4. article: though they wink and wil not see it, and are mute, and will not defend it, but wind away to o­ther things not there intended. Let them therfore in their next, bring a playn defence of their Ministerie, which by their new doc­trine is overthrowen: and use no more such tergiversation.

Vnto the other thing objected in the 3. & 5. articles by Lawn printed: First they signify that their testimonie against the antichristian hierarchie treated of in the Confession, is not by them reversed or weakned any way &c. I answer, these are but words: in deed and truth, the contrary wil appear. For as heretofore they Apol. p. 108.109.110.111.112. proved Antichrists baptisme to be not a true but a false sacrament; but now they plead for it Advertis. p. 54.55. to be the one true baptisme of Christ: so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian Confess. art. 29.30. & in many treatises. hierarchie of prelates Preists &c. their offices, entrance and administration: they now compare the popish ordination with the baptisme. Also they bring to warrant this, the Preists and Levites which were caled of God; as after is to be seen: and yet they would be thought, not to reverse their testimonie. Secondly they tel us how they were combred with the Anabaptists, and occasioned to think of their ministerie; as 1▪ That imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of Antichrists &c. I answer, thus also they shalbe occasioned to think of the Popes excommunication, for that is Gods ordinance as wel as their sacramēt of orders: and of the Romish Mass or supper, for that is Gods ordi­nance also; though by them abused to idolatrie. Yea thus the Iewes that 1. Macc. 1.12.16. f [...]l to paganisme, mought take occasion to think of the hethēs sacrifices, for they also were Gods ordinances in their first institutiō, as wel as Antichrists sacraments. But as for the Anabaptists, thē ­selves long since so refuted them, without this their new plea: that ther needed no fear of their strength at al. Finally, the impositiō of hands by an Antichristian prelate, upon that ministerie which is not of Christ but of Antichrists apostasie, I deny that such imposi­tion of hands is of God: and that such the whole ministerie of Rome is, is proved at large by many scriptures, in M. Iohnsons Reasons and Arguments against spiritual cōmunion with the M [...]nist pag. 17.18. &c,

[Page 61] [...]. Their second observation is, that baptism and imposition of hands, are joyned togither among the principles, Heb. 6, 2. I answer, so are baptism & the Lords supper (now of Antichristians caled the Mass) joyned in 1. Cor. 10.2.3. & 12.13. that if this reason be good, their next thoughts must be, about the lawfulnes of the Mass.

3. Thirdly they allege that imposition of hands is in Rome stil given to the office of ministerie, and in the name of the Lord. I answer, so also the Popes bulls of excōmunication goe forth from the office of Ministery, and in the name of the Lord: but so all mischeif began, and gave occasion to the proverb, in nomine Domini incipit omne malum. But let us take a view, how imposition of hands is used now in Rome, as they say in the name of the Lord. Ordination of ministers there Bellarm. l. de sacr. or­dinis. c. 2. is a sacrament, the outward signe or rite wherof, is imposi­tion of hands: the thing signifyed, is the promise of grace. They have se­ven Ibid. c. 5. orders, Preists, (or Sacrificers,) Deacons, Subdeacons, A [...]oluthes, Exorcists, Readers and Ostiaries (or keepers of the dore.) They are made Preists, when by the Bishop, (who Ibid. c. 11 & 9. onely can give this or­der) it is sayd, Bellarm. ibid. Pon­tisical. lib. de ordinat. presbyt. Receiv power to offer sacrifice vnto God, and to celebrate Masses, both for the living and for the dead, in the name of the Lord. The Bishop sayth with al, Receiv the holy Ghost: the Preists are also shaved on their crownes, and anoynted with oyl on their hands; that by that unction, and the Bishops bles†sing those hands may be conse­crated and sanctified of God. A stole of innocencie is put upon the Preist, and he promiseth to the Bishop and his successors, reverence, and obedience; and the Bishop gives him again the blessing of God the Fa†ther, & the †Son and the holy†Ghost that he may be blessed in his preistly order, and may offer placable hosts (or sacrifices) to God for the synns of the people. This ordination hath a Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. double effect, 1. a perpetual spiritual power; in sign wherof a character (or mark indeleble) is imprinted on them; and 2. grace making them acceptable, wherby they are inabled to execute their office. So this Bishoply ordination Ibid. c. 5. conferreth grace; and if any shal say, that the holy Ghost is not given hereby, let him (sayth the Council of Trent Sess. 23. can. 4.) be accursed. This is that holy ordina­tion (or rather, that abominable Idol, and Rev. 13, 16 mark of the beast,) so commended unto us by these men, as doon in the name of the Lord. And as for the Office of ministerie, to which they say now it is given. M. Iohnson himself ha [...]h Treat. of the Minist. p. 98.—105. set down heretofore 33. reasons and dif­ferences proving by many scriptures, that the popish preists office, [Page 62] is not the Christian Pastors office. Yea he affirmed the Answer to M. Iakob in pref. sec. 6. hierar­chie of Antichrist, to be the most detestable anarchie of Satan that ever was: and what now wil imposition of sacrilegious hands in the name of the Lord, doo good unto such a detestable ministery?

4. Fourthly they say, they find not precept, example or ground in scrip­ture, binding them to the repetition of [that ordination.] I answer, it is very true; no scripture bindeth men to repete or doo agayn such abominations. And we pray them shew us where is there precept, example or ground to keep the preisthood and indeleble charac­ter of Antichrist? But be it as they say; what then wil become of their own Ministery, for some of them have both received, & given vnto others, reordination: are they not in as evil case (by their own grounds) as the Anabaptists with their rebaptisation? They unjustly insinuate Anabaptistrie against us very often: but themselves are in like actual transgression with the Anabaptists (if their doctrine be true), and yet manifest not their repentance, nor tel us by vertue of which ordination, they doo now administer.

5. Fiftly they say, the Preists and Levites in Jsrael, being clensed of their vncleannes, reteyned stil their places, and their children after them, did minister without a new anoynting or new imposition of hands &c. I an­swer, then belike the Romish preists must keep their Antichristian preisthood still; for so the Preists in Israel did theirs. Otherweise if they must have a new office; how can they doo it by their old ordination? Even in Rome it self, when a Preist is promoted to a Bishops office, he is new Pontific. de cōscer. elect. in e­pisc. anoynted, both hands & head; the holy Ghost agayn given him, the pastoral staff, the ring, the Gospel is also given him, to goe preach to the people committed to him &c. and he hath a new imposition of hands besides that he had before.

2. If the Preists children Heb. 5, 4. caled of God, did in Israel minister without imposition of hands upon them at al, as they suppose: yet this wil make nothing for Antichrists hierarchie, caled of the Rev. 16.13, 14. Divil, with greasing, shaving, & imposing of hands, to sacrifice blasphe­mously for the quick and dead; that they should now minister by vertue of this office and calling in the Church of Christ. Neyther might Baals Preists or 2. King. [...]3.5. Zeph. 1, 4. Chemarims, administer in Gods temple. Their reason therfore from the Lords own Ministerie, is altogither unfit; the hethenish Flamins or Druides, are fitter matches for Beli­als clergie. And this M. Iohnson himself acknowledged, when he [Page 63] wrote against M. Hilderdersh. thus, Treat. of the Minist. p. 89. Jf Jupiters Preist, Act. 14.13. or if Mahumets Preists now in Turkye, should by the lawes of their nations be injoyned, and therupon should execute the Ministerie of Gods word, sacra­ments and censures: would it follow therfore that such Preists had the sub­stance of the Pastors office? And why then should this Preisthood of An­tichrist have more privilege then those, seing the word of God hath layd this duty no more vpon it then upon the other, but hath left them al, with their followers and adherents under the curse. Psal. 119, 21, 128. Rev. 9, 3. & 14.9, 10, 11. Thus he then wrote, but now we find an other maner of plea.

6. Sixtly they say, That they find in scripture some officers admitted with it, some without it. This I find not. They allege Act. 13.1.2.3. where Paul and Barnabas had it. It is true: yea Paul had imposition of hands twise, Act. 9.17. & 13.3. but where is the scripture that sayth some had it not? They say, we read not that the other Apostles had. what then? dooth this proov they had it not? So we may also con­clude the other Apostles were never baptised, for we read not that they were. We read not (say the Anabaptists) that children were baptised in the Apostles dayes: wil these men now conclude, ther­fore they were not baptised. But doo not they know, that argu­ments thus drawn negatively from scripture, are generally blamed for insufficient?

7. Seventhly they say, that some churches hold it not of necessity to be had &c. I answer: that is nothing to such as hold it, and have Elders to doo it. But they diminish the state of the question; for when the Apostle speaketh of Jmposition of hands Heb. 6.2. dooth he mean the outward ceremonie onely, or the doctrine of the mi­nisterie, caling, & ordination signified by the sign? I hope the refor­med churches deny no principle of religion, such as that is. So in this case spoken of, were it onely the outward signe, I would not contend. But they compare the baptism of Rome and the Minis­terie of Rome togither: no new baptising into the church, ther­fore no new ordeyning unto the ministerie: but as al come out of the Apostasie baptised Christians, so some doo come ordeyned mi­nisters. Wherfore if these be alike, they bring with them in their account, the substance of a true 1. Cor. 1 [...] 5.28. office and of a true Heb. 5, [...]. caling. Other­weise if a new office and caling be given them, I assure my self they that say Receiv the Teachers office &c. may impose hands: even as they that say: J baptise thee into the name of the Father &c, may put on [Page 64] water. Now these mens testimonie heretofore hath been strong Apol. p. 46, 47—54. Reasons & arg. against spiritual cō munion with the Minist. of England, the whole book. against the Office or ministerie it self, with the caling, ad­ministration &c. And now let them shew by the word, that a new caling into a new office which men had not before, may be by the ordination or imposition of hands given by Antichrist unto a false office with a false calling.

8. Thus (say they) we shew our keeping of cōmunion with all other chur­ches &c. I answer, this reason is good, if communion be kept in the 1. Ioh. 1.6.7. light not in darknes: let Gods word therfore try the case. Yet let these men say, whither they know not, that the ministers made in these reformed churches, are not admitted in Engl. without a new ordination by the Prelates. And that al Scholars admitted into Geneva, must expressly Ex Calvi­ni opusc. Form. cōf. cui se ad­string. &c. detest the Popish hierarchie so caled, as a Divilish confusion: which hierarchie consisteth of Bishops, Preists and Ministers, and they that say it is not by divine ordination are by the Council of Sess. 23. can. 6. Trent, accursed. Is not here good communion? Yea let me further tel them, how the learned and better sort in England, have disclay­med cōmunion with that Romish clergie. D. Fulk, in the Answ. of a true Christian to a counterfeyt catholik, sayth, Answer to art. 13. Although al godly men wish more severitie of discipline to be used, in receiving them that come out of heresies to serv in the Church, then is commonly practised in England: yet you are highly deceived if you think we esteem your offices of Bishops, Preists, Deacons, any better then the state of lay men, but farr worse: for we judge them to be nothing ells but Antichristianitie, heresie and blasphemie. And therfore we receiv none of them to minister in our church, except they forswear your religion: and so their admission is not an allowing of your ordering, but a new caling unto the Ministerie. Thus wrote M. Fulk: but now these our opposites, to shew how they would keep cōmunion with Rome, al­low of their ordering, as of their baptising, which they plead to be true baptisme, as after shall appear. Yet let them shew us whither al the hierarchie of Antichrist, as Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Friers, Monks, Iesuits, Seminaries, Preists, Parsons, Vicars, with the rest of that crew, be all of them to be admitted true Ministers into a Christian church, by vertue of the Imposition of hands, had in that kingdom of the Beast: and if not al, which of them must be reordeyned, and vvhich not. Themselves have acknowledged Answ. to M. Iakob. p. 122. that the Ministers of Antichrist, are the spirits of Divils, Rev. 16, 13.14. let them now if they can, manifest them to be the Ministers of Christ.

[Page 65]9. We thought best (say they) to stay and consider further &c. if we find it ought to be doon, we can doe it at any time, &c. Then (say I) they should have stayed the practise of admitting such a teacher to administer, til they had been resolved whither his office and ordi­nation had been of God or no. But first they let him administer, then they inquire of the lawfulnes: the Godly heretofore did not so in a case of doubt, but stayed the administration of some preists, til they had assurance from God. Ezr. 2.62.63.

10. The church (say they) did chuse him into office, and we by prayer commended him to God for his grace and assistance in the ministration therof. Which we did without imposition of hands at that time; as both our selves had before doon, at our first growing into order: and as the French and Dutch churches also did &c. I answer, things are darkly set down: by saying first the church did, then, and we; they occasion us to ask what church they mean, their own particular, or some other. If their own, whether they chose him to an office that had none be­fore: or chose him from a false office to a true: or chose him be­ing already a true officer, to be theirs, as they admitt the members of an other Church to be a member of theirs by prayer. If the last were not, how stands their comparison between baptism & ordinati­on? If they did so: then they abuse the reader with the example of their own ordination before. For they had renounced their former Ministerie as false; and received a new, by the election and ordina­tion of the people (though at the first without that sign spokē of,) who gave them a ministerie which they never had. The outward sign at that time was not used, onely because ther were not Elders before: now ther were Elders which imposed hands at the same time on others. It is a known fallacie, to pretend that for a cause 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 an other?

11. Observ (say they) how these and their partakers can hold that the people having no office may excōmunicate, and some of them that they may al­so minister the sacraments: and yet can except against such as are in office, if they doo but make question of a ceremonie &c. I answer; the first wee hold but as themselves heretofore did: & upon what ground they have left it, is before discussed. The second as touching us, (so farr as I know) is a slander, a mere untruth. I know not one among [Page 66] us, that holdeth men without office, may minister the sacraments. The third, if it be as they say a question but of a ceremonie, and not of the very substance of the ministerie, to be reteyned as their baptisme, I wil profess to cease striving thereabout, (though I think they err in it,) yea and repent that I have striven so farr. But if it be in deed more then a ceremonie, as I suppose the things forespoken wil mani­fest; let these men take heed how they so dissemble, for Isa. 29.1 [...] Woe vnto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord. Of the Anabap­tists objections we have spoken before. And now let him that read­eth, consider, what weight ther is in their later thoughts, compa­red with their former judgments confirmed by so many reasons, as the publik writings shew. Let him also note, how for this later point which they count but a ceremonie, they say many things as we have heard: but for the former, their own ministerie, which is a matter of substance and most neerly concerns them, they say no­thing, but turn aside as if they saw it not. And for this also, let the reader observ Mr Iohnsons own words, in answer to Mr Hildershā, Treat. of the Minist. p. 122. who can bring a Iob. 14.4. clean thing out of filthynes? Is it possible that a lawful or­dination, should be had from the ministers & Apostasie of Antichrist? Mat. 7.16. 2. Cor. 6, 14, 15, 16. with 2. Thes. 2.3. And if he be loth to stand to his former assertions: let him yet shew what comfort or assurāce any can have of the ordination in the Papacie, that it is frō Ioh. 3.27. heavē; considering the Preists have their authoritie from the Bishops, the Bishops from the Pope: the Popes (as their own writers & Chroni­clers doo record,) have been divided by schismes, 2, or 3, Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 14. Popes at once, one cursing and condemning another, and among the suc­cessors, one repealing Platina in Steph. 2. Rom. & Th [...]od. 2. the acts of an other. And among the rest, one shee Platinain Ioh. 8. Pope Ioan an harlot. And among many schismes one (which was the 22.) dured Ioh. Ma [...]ij de schism. & Concil. c. 13. fourtie yeres, wherin the Antipopes so rent their Babel-church into factions, that the cheifest and learnedest of the clergie, could not discern which of them was the true successor of Peter, (as they use to speak) but some clave to one Pope, some to another. Had these no [...] power from Christ to make ministers in his church? or are not they strangely caried, that had rather derive their Mini­sterie by uncertayn succession frō such beasts▪ then from the Lords true Church and people? And may we think that when God bring the Iewes agayn to the fayth (as he hath Rom, 11. promised,) that they wil goe to Antichrists throne for to erect a ministerie for them? [Page 67] These and the like things considered, may shew what soundnes is in their doctrine and practise, that fetch their ordination from Rome, as they doo their baptisme.

Finally let me admonish the reader, that The man of syn, who boasteth himself to be Sext. decr l. 5. tit. 9. c. 5 in glossa. the Bishop of the whole world, as also to have the Ibid. l. 3. tit. 16. c. u­nico, in gl. Princedom (or soveraygntie) of al the world; and may not onely order and degrade preists, but set up and depose Princes, so exal­ting himself above 2. Thes. 2.4. al that is caled God; is for thus doing, to be accounted a traytor against Christ and al Princes of the world. And as the dayes have been when he chalenged both church and crown of England (as in Matth. Parisiens. in vita Iohan▪ regis. King Iohns time,) to have the Prince his vassal, as wel as the Preists his subjects: so is his wil to doo al­wayes and in al places. But this being tyrannie and usurpation in him both over church and common wealth, he hath alwayes had as good authority to make a Lord Maior in London, as to make a Bishop there, and to create a Prince as wel as a Preist or prelate: the one is injurious to the State, the other to the Church. And for men to hold or derive the preisthood or ministerie from that Vsur­per, hath no more warrant that I know of, then if one would hold or derive a magistracie from him; for as God hath given every cō ­mon wealth power next under himself, to cal & set up Magistrates, according to the lawes of Realmes; so Christ hath given every church power next under himself, to call and constitute ministers according to his word: and not to derive their spiritual functions from his professed Adversarie, whom he hath promised to 2. Thes. 2.8. con­sume with the spirit of his mouth, & to abolish with the brightnes of his cōming.

The 5. point of difference: in the Letter.

1. WEe had learned that it was gross errour, and notorious ab­surditie, Apolog. p. 113. eyther to hold the Popish Church to be a true Church, having a true Ministerie and true sacraments, or ells that men men must admitt of rebaptising. But now we have heard, that the baptisme of the Popish church is true baptisme (by which we are bound to cōmunion,) or ells that men must be rebaptised: and that the church of Rome is the Church of God, because Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God.

[Page 68]With this they joyn the 4. & 8. out of the printed copie.

4. The 31. Article of our Confession, (and also our Apologie, p. 109.) professeth that such ecclesiastical assemblies as remayn so in confusion and bondage under that Antichristian ministerie, courts, canons, &c. cannot be estemed true visible churches &c. These now plead, not onely for thē, but for Rome it self, to be the true church of God.

8. The 8. is as the 5. before expressed.

These things are confirmed by sundry scriptures and reasons in the pla­ces quoted, as the reader may there see.

Against these their former testimonies they now Advertis. p. 54. thus dispute. 1: Jt is true baptisme: as the circumcision in Jsraels Apostasie was true cir­cumcision. I answer, these are their own assertions: but we would hear, Thus sayth the Lord. True circumcision was the seal of the righte­teousnes of faith: Rom. 4.11. Israel in their Apostasie were fallen from the faith, Hos. 11, 12. they were without the true God, & without preist to teach, and without law, 2. Chron. 15.3. and how then could they have the true circumcision, the seal of the righteousnes of faith, and for­givnes of their synns, in that sinful estate? 2. The matching of Popish baptisme and Israels circumcision, though in this they agree that they are both false sacraments & lying signes: yet is baptisme ten times more defiled in Rome, then circumcision was in Israel. Let us take a view therof, as it is at the best, and now refined by the Iesuites. When any man comes to be baptised in Poperie, after some quaestions praemised, 1. Bellarm. de sac bap. l. 1. c. [...]5. He hath the sign of the Cross made on his forehead and breast; which holy signe among other good properties, hath power to drive away B [...]llarm. de imag. l. 2. c. 29. divils, 2. Then foloweth Bell. de bapt. l. 1. c. 2 [...]. Exorcisme that is, adjuration of the Divils to goe frō the man that is to be baptised. 3. After that comes Bell. ibid Exsufflatiō or blowing of the Divils away, & an afflation of the good spirit in their sted. 4. Next foloweth the tasting of salt, which is unto them in sted of the Eu­charist. 5. Then the touching of the nosthrills and eares with spittle, and saying Ephata, that is, be opened. 6. After that the preist gives him imposition of hands, and his blessing. 7. And then he is anoynted with blessed oil on his brest and showlders. Bellarmin. ibid. c. 26. 8. When he is thus sanctified, a name is given unto him. 9. He must have Godfathers or Godmothers, to instruct him in time to come. 10. Then folowes consecration of the water, 11. And a dipping three times into [Page 69] the water, in the name of the Father of the Son & of the holy Ghost. 12. After comes Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. the kyss of peace, in sign that the brother is bap­tised. 13. And an Vnction of the Chrisme, on the crown of his head. 14. Then is a waxe candle lighted given him, for a sign of faith and grace received, & that he is trāslated out of darknes into light. 15. And a white garment is put upō him, which he weareth for a certayn time. These pageants are playd in Babels language, an unknown tongue: & this baptisme ex opere operato, by the work wrought (for here is a great deal more doon then Christ ever would,) dooth Bellar. de de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 3 conferr grace, and in very deed Bell. de bapt. l. 1. c. 13. taketh away al synns, so as they are not one­ly not imputed, but ther is not any thing that can be imputed for a blame unto him. And if any shal say, that grace is not conferred by the work doon, the Fathers of the Council of Trent have decreed, Concil. Trident. ses. 7. de sacr. in Gē. can. 8. Let him be accursed. And although this baptism be of it self so gracious, yet any graceless person may baptise in time of need, be it man or Bell. de bapt. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 1. c. 25. woman, be it Christian, Jew, Turk or Pagan: baptisme hath his effect, & conferreth popish grace, and washeth away synns notwithstanding. This is the baptisme about which we contend: now let us proceed with our opposites arguments. Jf [...] be not a true baptisme ( Advert. p. 54. say they) it is a false: and false baptism is not Gods baptisme. &c. A true baptisme we are bound to have, when we have the means, wherfore they that hold it not to be true baptisme, must be rebaptised. I answer, we doubt not but it is a false baptisme, and a lying signe, wherwith Antichrist deceiveth his subjects, under a shew of Christianitie: 1. because it is not possible for any work of a mere man (much less of a sacrilegious preist) to give grace, or to take away synns, for this is peculiar to Ioh. 1.17. Heb. 10, 10, 14. 1. Ioh. 1.7.Christ God and man, and to his most precious blood, which onely clenseth us from al syn. 2. because true baptisme be­ing a sign of the Act. 22.16 Rom. 4, 11. & 6, 3, 4. 1. Cor. 12, 13. washing away of synns, and a seal of the righte­ousnes of faith, of our ingraffing into Christ, his death, burial & resurrection: it cannot be that Antichrist the man of syn, and his worshippers, which are by the sentence of God devote unto 2 Thes. 2, 4— 12. Rev. 14, 9, 10. dam­nation, should have from God such a sign and seal; but they falsly usurp the same, as many other things to their just judgement. Yet need not men that discern and forsake those lyes and impostures, to have any new washing: because the Idolaters heretofore 2 Chro. 30, 1. &c. Ezr. 6, 21, re­penting & forsaking their false synagogues and lying signes in thē usurped, needed not a new outward cutting or circumcising, as is [Page 70] shewed at large in our former writings, Discoverie, p. 116.—120. Apo­logie p. 110.—113. For though the degree of syn in Rome be greater by farr then that of Apostate Israel, (as elswhere Arrow a­gainst Idol. c. 5. is also manifes­ted:) yet seing they then were fallen 2. Chro. 15.3. from God and from his church, and so were Ier. 3.8. divorsed from the Lord, and were Hos. 2.2. not his wife, but Hos. 13.1 dead in their synns: the ordinances of God which they in shew reteyned, could not be unto them the signes and seals of forgivnes of synns, and of life eternal, and therfore were in their use of them, false and deceytful; as were also the ordinances of God reteyned in other nations, as Numb. 23, 1. Pom­pon. Laetus de sacerdo. Tibull. l. 1. Eleg. 10. & l. 2. eleg. 1. 2. Homer. Odyss. 3. & Iliad. 1. Virgil. Aen. 2. Caesar. bell. Gall. l. 6. Altars, Sacrifices, Preists, tithes, firstfruits, incense, meat offrings, drink offrings, feasts, baptismes or washings, anoyntings, excōmunications, prayers, vowes, & many the like, wherof al histories doo bear record, that the Gentiles did reteyn them.

2. They proceed secondly and say, Jf the baptism had in the church of Rome be not true baptisme, then it is not the Lords baptisme: and then they which have no other but it, should get the Lords baptisme, afore they come to the Lords table, to eat the Lords supper &c. I answer, this reason is the same in effect with the former, and there answered, as also long a­goe objected by the enemies of the truth, and refuted by Discov. p. 116. &c. M. Bar­row. We have gotten the Lords baptisme by coming to the Lord in true faith and repentance, who Mat. 3.11 1. Cor. 12.13. 1. Pet. 3, 21. baptiseth us with the wholy Ghost and with fyre. As for the outward washing which we had, it need not be repeted; as before is shewed: and we may as lawfully eat the Lords supper without a new washing, as the Idolatrous Israelites turning to the Lord, might eat the passover with out a new cutting or circumcising. 2. Chron. 30.1.5.11.18.19.20.21.25. Ezra. 6.21. So wheras they charge us with profaning the Lords table, it is turned upon their own heads: for they have these many yeres professed the Romish baptisme to be not a true but a Apol p. 110—113. false Sacra­ment, whiles yet without a new washing they did partake of the Lords supper. If this be to pollute and prophane it, as now they press us, why doo they not first repent themselves of such prophanation; why cal they not in, their former writings, and refute them?

3. Agayn (they dispute) ther is but one baptism, Eph. 4.5. Baptisme in the church of Rome, eyther is that one baptisme or is not it. Jf it be that one: then is it true baptism: if not, then they which have no other but it, have not that one baptisme, and therfore must get it &c. I answer, 1. This agayn [Page 71] is the same argument with the former, and before answered.

2. This ground from Eph. 4.5. was that which Epist. l. 1 epist. 12. Cyprian builded on, who taught rebaptising of such as had been baptised by here­tiks: whose arguments seing our Adversaries thus urge, we pray them tel us, whither they be of Cyprians mind for rebaptising; and if they be, wherein they differ in that point from Anabaptists? If they be not, then it seemeth they hold that al such as are baptised by hereticks, Antichrists, excommunicates, schismatiks, and other like, have that one true baptisme of God, Eph. 4.5. and so have the seal from God of forgivenes of synns, and are one body with thē ­selves. And if not, then they reason but for fashion sake, to trou­ble us and the world with questions.

4. Furthermore (they argue) such baptism is eyther a seal of Gods cove­nant or not. Jf it be, then sure it is true baptisme. Jf not, then 1. they which have no other baptisme, must with the Anabaptists get another, that they may be assured they have the seal of Gods covenant &c. 2. then that ther neyther have been nor shal be in Babylō any of Gods people &c. Rev. 18.4. 3. then, baptism now had in Apostate churches is not answerable to the circumcision had in the Apostasie of Jsrael: for that was true circumcision &c. I answer, they may by a litle varying of words make an 100. such reasons, alone and the same; al begging the question, and prooving nothing. What one scripture or reason frō thence, is here brought to prove Antichrists baptism, true baptisme? Let any mā define by the word, true Christiā baptism, & then compare therwith the blasphemous Christening before set out from Bellarmine, and he shall see what accord is between them. And wheras the burden of these mens song, is, wee must ells baptise agayn: this is no proof at al; for (be­sides that which is before answered,) what if it be our errour that we baptise not agayn? wher be then all their proofs, are they not vanished into smoke? Verily I should much rather incline to Cypri­ans error (though I am farr from it) for a new washing: then ap­prove the sacrilegious washing used by that man of syn with most high dishonour to the blood of Christ, to be that one true Christi­an baptism; the seal of Gods covenant. For that of Rev. 18.4. because God caleth his people out of Babylon, therfore Babylons baptisme is true baptisme, is without all colour of reason. As if one should argue thus, God by Ieremie caled his people out of Ba­bylon, Ier. 51, 45. therfore Babylons sacrifices, and sacraments, [Page 72] were true. Who would not rather conclude hereby the contrary: God caleth his people out of her, therfore she vvith all her coun­feyt service, sacraments & apish imitation of Gods holy things, are detestable and cursed. Agayn, a people may be Gods, though un­baptised: as the uncircumcised Israelites vvere Gods people, Deut. 29.10,—13. vvith Josh. 5, 4, 5. The 3. point of Israels circum­cision to be true, is but barely by them affirmed, vvithout proof; and is before disproved. And if they shal continue thus to say al things, and prove nothing: I vvill never trouble my self more to ansvver their discourses.

5. Finally (they reason) if baptisme in Rome be not true baptism, then (as we also sayd) it is an idol; bearing shew and image of that which it is not in truth. And jdols ar things of naught &c. and so baptisme in Rome, is a thing of naught; and to be estemed as nothing in the world, as filth, or doung &c. I answer, idols are of two sorts; some merely devised by men, as Ieroboams 1. King. 12 28. calves: some perverted by men from holy signes to Idols, as 2 King. 18 4.the brazen Serpent. Both these kinds are in popish bap­tisme. For their crosses, exorcismes, greasings &c. are Idols of the first sort, worse then Ieroboams bullocks: their washing with water in nomine patris &c. is of the second sort, that is, Gods ordinance tur­ned into an Idol as was the brazen Serpent. Thus is there a mixture in Antichrists Christening, of both sorts of abominations. Ther­fore have we renounced that Romish baptisme, as an impure idol in their abuse, standing up in the place of Christ and his precious blood, which it is not; pretending to give grace, and wash away synns, which it dooth not; but it is a lye Isa. 44, 20 in the right hand of al that so receiv it: and the saying of the Apostle is verified in it, an idol is nothing in the world. 1 Cor. 8.4. Yet, I hope, they think not that the Apostle is contrarie to the Prophet, who sayth their idols are silver and gold, the work of mens hands, Psal. 115.4. an idol then for the matter and workmanship is somthing, but for the relation un­to God, or divine grace, it is nothing: and thus th'Apostle mea­neth as his next words shew, 1. Cor. 8. [...]. ther is no other God but one. So Popish baptisme, as touching the material thing is somwhat, the salt, the water, the oil, are God creatures: the outward action is the work of the hands of an idolatrous Preist; and this work remayneth as did the work of the Idolaters circumcising in Israel: but as touching the relation, (which is the mayn thing in a sacrament,) that it should [Page 73] seal up unto them the forgivnes of synns, and (as they blasphemous­ly say) quite take away synns, and conferr grace; so it is a vayn idol and nothing: for neyther doo the true Sacraments in Christs church work any such effect to Gods own people: and as for that Anti­christian synagogue, it is not appointed to salvation, but to con­demnation by the just sentence of God. Rev. 17.11. & 18.8.20.21. 2. Thes. 2.11.12. Therfore it wil not help them to say, that baptis­me in it self considered, is Christs ordinance: for the brazen Num. 21.8.9. Ser­pent was in it self Gods ordinance at first, and a sacramental signe of their redemption by Ioh. 3.14 15. Christ, yet they that burnt incense to it, made it an Idol, and therfore as 2. King, 18, 4. Nehushtan, (a peece of brass,) it was destroyed. Yea this is acknowledged of the popish baptisme, by the most learned and conscionable of our own Land. M. Per­kins sayth, and proveth it, Warning against I­dolat. p. 33. The Church of Rome transformeth the sacra­ments to Jdols, by teaching that they conferr grace ex opere operato, by the work doon &c. To this effect (sayth he) the Missal. re­format. de benedict. fontis. Preist is appointed to pray, that the nature of waters might conceiv the vertue of sanctification: that God would make the water fruitful by the secret admixtiō of his godhead, that having cō ­ceived sanctification, a new creature may spring out of the immaculate womb of the divine fountayn, that it may be living water &c. Yea further he sheweth that Ibid. p. 18 —20. God himself, & Christ, being worshiped in, at, or before an image, is presently transformed into an idol. But what need I insist up­on other men; even Mr Iohnson himself, hath pleaded Answ. to Mr Iakob. p. 120. the Prelates and Preists (which administer baptisme) to be Jdol shepheards, the Apol. pa. 112.113. sa­craments to be not true but false; and citeth against them their own testimonies to prove that Treat. of the Minist. p. 15. Christ himself is made an idol among thē. Yet loe how he now inveigheth against us, for saying that the ba­ptisme in Antichrists synagogue is an Idol.

But now as Satan hath begun to perswade Antichrists christening to be Christs true baptisme, (although the scripture plainly sayth, 2 Cor. 6.15· what concord hath Christ with Belial?) so he wil not cease there, but justify the cursed Mass, by like reason, to be the blessed Supper of our Lord. For it is the same church that injoyeth these 2. sacram ^ts, the same preists minister them, both in the same Babylonish unknown language, both of thē having Christs institutiō abused by the man of syn: and as water is in their baptisme, so bread and wine is in their mass: as in baptism they use the frō Mat. 28.19. name of the Father the Son & the holy Ghost, so in the Mass, they use frō Mat. 26.26. Take eat this is my body &c. [Page 74] Now why should one of these sacraments be true, and not an other? Al that are not Antichrists bondmen, detest his Mass as a mon­strous idol: let them that lyst, honour his baptism. Agayn, excō ­munication is Gods ordinance as wel as baptisme: and these our op­posits say, Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26. that by it a man is cut off from communion with al churches of Christ upon earth, having his synns also bound in heaven; as on the contra­ry by baptisme we are entred into communion with al churches of Christ in the world. This Excommunication the church of Rome useth as wel as baptisme, and hath power from Christ to doo it, as wel as to baptise: wherupon it wil folow, if we be bound to communion with them that they baptise, we are also bound to avoyd the com­munion of them that they excommunicate. Now for asmuch as these our Opposites themselves (besides al other) that have separa­ted from the church and doctrines of Rome, have many curses and Anathemaes layd upon them by the council of Trent and Popes Bulls: what ar they the better for being baptised in their infancie, now that they are excommunicated in their mans age.

They told us Advert. p. 46. before, (and sayd, we have not yet learned it as we should,) that by our baptism we ar bound to communion: and now let them also teach us, whither by their excommunication, we ar not bound to shun their communion. Or if they wil not answer us, let them an­swer the Papists, who Harding. confut. of the Apol. part. 2. c. 5. plead that their Apostate preists being divided and cut of from the church, and excommunicate, may not lawfully minister the sacraments. And wheras M. Iewel complayned, we have been cast out by these men [...], being cursed of them (as they use to say) with b [...]l book and can­del: Harding answereth; Ibidem part. 5. c. 15. To be excommunicate, ye have deserved &c. neyther were ye by excommunication put from vs, til ye had by contumacie severed your selves from the Church, and shewed your selves desperate and in­corrigible. And what wil they say to the Synedrion, the represen­tative church of England, whose Constit. & can. ec­cles. 1603. excōmunications ipso facto, if they be of the Lord, doo forbid al Christians to cōmunicate with these men, that thus plead for Antichrists baptisme: yea they wil tel M. Iohnson in his own words, that it Treat. of the minist. of Engl. p. 17. is a fearful syn, (their Church be­ing a true Church) to contemne their excōmunication. If they answer, their excōmunications are unjust, therfore they are of no weight: this wil not salve the sore. For 1. al excōmunicated, wil say they are cast out unjustly: shal their own sayings be accepted? if not, then neyther these mens; til their particular causes be cleared. In the [Page 75] mean time, men wil more regard the church, then him that is cast out of the Church: and according both to Mat. 18.17. Christs doctrine, & the doctrine of the Church Artic. of religion, 33 of England, he should be estemed an hethen and publican. 2. Agayn many have been cast out for con­temptuous refusing to come unto the Bishops synedrion, & they have left those Bishops, Ministers, Consistories & Churches, as be­ing al false and Antichristian, unto M. Iohns. his Treat. of the Mi­nist. of Eng. p. 60, 62. whom no church duty of ad­monition &c. did belong. And now that these men have changed their mind, and count it a true Church and Ministerie, (though with corruptions): how wil they be able to bear out such as are ex­cōmunicated, for so great contempt and errour? 3. Thirdly, as Antichristians doo excōmunicate such as they should not: so doo they baptise such as they ought not, even open impenitent Idola­ters and their seed, the Mat, 3.7. generation of Vipers which Iohn Baptist would refuse. Yea Mr Iohnson himself hath sayd of a better estate then Romes, that Treat. of the Minist. p. 91. Gods covenant is sacrilegiously violated, whiles it is sayd to the open wicked (in delivering them the seals of Gods covenant) Thou art righteous. Therfore if the Popes excōmunicatorie bulls, are but bubbles because they are unjustly executed: his baptisme also will be found but a fiction, & no true seal of salvation to such as receive it of him.

Finally touching circumcision, I think it cannot be manifested that any peoples fallen from God and his Church, using it colou­rablie for a religious action, (as al Antichristians and heretiks doo baptism at this day,) did or were bound to cutt their foreskin the second time, if they came unto the truth of God: as for example, the Colchians, Aegyptians and Aethiopians, whom Herodot. in Euterpe. histories mentiō to be circumcised; or the Samaritans, whom Mr Iohnson In Answ. to Mr Ia­kob. p. 68. acknow­ledgeth to have stil vsed circumcision. Hereunto we may add out of the Iewish records, how they hold, that Maimo­nie, tract. de circum­cis. c. 2. Al have leav to circumcise, yea though it be an uncircumcised person, or a servant, or a woman, or a child, cir­cumcising in the place where ther is no man. But an hethen may not circum­cise at al: yet if he doo circumcise, ther is no need to return & circumcise the second time. If this rule stand, we shal not need to repeat our outward washing in baptism, though given us by Antichrist, or any other aliants from the church & covenant of promise.

The 6. point of difference: in the letter.

WE had learned Confess. art. 38. that al particular congregations are by al VI means convenient to have the counsel and help one of a­nother, in al needful affaires of the Church, as mēbers of one bo­dy in the common faith: yet here when differences had arisen a­bout our common faith, and could not amongst our selves be cō ­posed, they would not desire nor consent to have desired, the help of our sister Church at Leyden, although it were instantly urged by many members that their assistance should be had.

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

Against this they except, 1. that though for some reasons they abstey­ned from desiring it, or sending for them, or giving their consent so to doo: yet they were content to permitt it: which was not a denying of the practise of it, as the printed copy objecteth &c 1 Cor. 7.6. Deut. 24.1. I answer; the scrip­tures on which we grounded that article, being Act. 15. chap. 1. Cor. 14.33.36. shew an other manner of dutie, then a permission. For when dissention had arisen in the church of Antioch, they Act. 15.2. or­deyned that some should goe up to Ierusalem, unto the Apostles & Elders about the question. And the messengers were vers. 3. sent forth of the Church, and vers. 4. were received by the Church at Ierusalem, & the Apostles and Elders, who ver. 25. came togither with one accord, & after discussing and agreement, wrote to the Church of Antioch, what had vers. 28. &c. seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them. And [Page 108] Paul sheweth a reason of such mutual entercourse, when he sayth, Came the word of God out from you eyther came it unto yow onely? 1 Cor. 14.36. Wherfore seing the word of God, was come unto the Church of Leyden, as unto us; and considering the practise that was in the APOSTOLIKE Churches hereto­fore, and our profession to walk according; it is but a sory an­swer to say they would permitt of it, if others did it; as Moses Deut. 24.1. per­mitted the bill of divorse, for Mat. 19.8. the hardnes of mens harts; and as Paul spake a thing 1 Cor. 7.6. by permission, not by commandement. For we think those Apostolical practises, Act. 15. to be in sted of commande­ments unto us, Philip. 3.17. And our Confession noteth it as a dutie, even by al means convenient. By this al may see, how weak a defense they make, for their proceedings.

Their reasons folow; 1. that the other Church & we were in peace togither: & if by this occasiō the peace should be brokē, they should not say, they sēt for thē. I answer, this exceptiō wil lye against al Churches in the world that are at peace: and might have been objected by the conten­tious at Antiochia; Act. 15. and wil be colour to cut off al use of that practise, and of our former profession. 2. That the Church of Leyden was in the same error with us who desired their help. I answer; this also might the troublers of the Church in Antioch, have objected as colourably against the Church of Ierusalem, Act. 15. & it is a barr to cut of al help from other Churches. Yea if any heresie be raysed by the officers in a Church, contrary to their former faith: they may thus except against al Churches, unless they wil fal into the same errors with them.

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

4 Their next exception about a letter written by some to that church, a copy wherof was desired, but not granted &c. is an occasion taken by [Page 109] that accident. But they know, that before that letter was written, they signified their unwillingnes to intreat their help: and now were glad, that they had gotten a show to hold them off. 2. For the Letter mentioned, I did think it was meet they should have sent it, and so I wish they had: though they shewed reasons of their not doing it for the present, but have since that time sent thē a copy.

5. They next object, my own subscribing of those letters to Leyden &c & ask whether I denyed the practise of that article &c. I answer; first I had sundry times signified in publick my mind, that their help should be desired in the end, if we could not agree, but we would first use al means among our selves: & so I never was of their mind, who refused absolutely to desire their help; & this they wel know. Secondly, I subscribed those Letters, because I thought it meet that a copy of the foresayd letter should have been sent, as before I sig­nified. Thirdly for the last letter (which to my remembrance I consented to,) they know I refused to subscribe it, til some words which implied an absolute denyal of requesting their help, were put out and changed. Fourthly, when no means among our selves could end the strife, they know, how I both intreated them to con­sent they might be sent for: & when they would not, my self went and obteyned their cōming. In deed I was loth to trouble them without urgent cause; & with my brethren now opposite, I sought to nourish peace, & it may be more then I should; which now they thus return upon me: and I therfore shal bear, and make use of it for hereafter.

6. Of their reasoning with them when they came from Leyden, it is not to the point in hand. Yet how unwilling they were even to admit of it, all present then did see: and the Elders of the church of Leyden, as occasion is can testifie. But I forbear to insist upon par­ticulars: which are not so profitable for the readers.

7. Finally they ask why we did not desire the counsel and help of the Dutch & French churches? I answer, first these our opposites with us, had before dealt with them against their errors in this and o­ther points, so farr as we could, and ended with them. What rea­son had we now to call for them to defend that errour which our whole church had condemned? Secondly, they could not discuss the cōtroversie in our English tongue, to the understanding of our [Page 110] Congregation novv troubled: no nor of al our Elders. Thirdly, these that thus object, did not (to my remembrāce) desire any such thing: if they had, I should not for my part have refused so absolute­ly as did they. But thus have they turned every stone, to see if they could find any colour, for vvithstanding the help of the Church of Leyden: vvith vvhat vveight and equitie, let the prudent judge.