An animadversion to Mr Richard Clyftons advertisement Who under pretense of answering Chr. Lawnes book, hath published an other mans private letter, with Mr Francis Iohnsons answer therto. Which letter is here justified; the answer therto refuted: and the true causes of the lamentable breach that hath lately fallen out in the English exiled Church at Amsterdam, manifested, by Henry Ainsworth.

An Animadversion to Mr Richard Clyftons Advertisement.

Of the occasion of publishing this controversie▪ and of the state therof.

AS they that styrr up warrs and strife, “ 1.1 impute the cause unto others, which lyeth on them selves: so these our opposers, which wil needs bid us battel, yet begin it as occasioned by us thereunto. They object 1. our private letters, and 2. printed Arti∣cles, as reasons moving them to print against us. But how vveighty motives these are on their part; let the discreet reader judge, by these our answers.

1. I wrote no such letters to any, til they had printed their first book, and so possessed the world with the strife. 2. Mine were pri∣vate, to freinds & brethren; theirs publick, even to enemies also. 3. They did it of their own proper wil and motion; I was provoked sundry wayes, by letters from abroad, and freinds at home. For example, one writeth to me thus: Because it is doubted by some, not one∣ly whither [Mr Jo.] his practise with you, be answerable to his writing: but also whither in his writing ther be not a discoherence, he being so intricate that many cannot apprehend his meaning: my earnest desire is, and the desire of many others among us, that you would afford us this favour, to signify to us by your letter, the certaynty &c. Another writeth to my freind thus, we not knowing wel to send a letter unto M. A. thought good to write unto you to intreat him to write unto us concerning the differences that be amongst you &c. Those that come over of M. J. his side, say they hold no more con∣cerning the Eldership, then M. A. hath written against M. Smyth: o∣thers say to the contrary; we doo therfore intreat M. A. to certifie us of the truth &c. Vpon these and the like motives there and here by some that went over to their freinds, I have written as I was necessarily occa∣sioned privately, of the differences between us; making account my letters would come to our opposites hand, as is fallen out: for w^ch I am not sory, save so farr as hereby they occasion their own evils to be further manifested, which I had rather (if so it pleased God)

they were hid and buryed by repentance. 4. Themselves have doon the like, and even this Advertiser wel knowes, who wrote to a freind in Engl. perswading against us that saying of the Apostle, Receiv him not to house neyther bid him God speed: 2. Joh. 10. which letter (if we would have sought occasion as they have,) we might ere this have printed, with the answer. By this al may see, how partial these men are, which advertise the world of our writing co∣versly; when themselves (if it be a fault) are guilty of the same.

2. Touching the printed Articles, so often spoken of in their Advertisement; as we had no hand in, or knowledge of the publi∣shing of them: so must we now shew the reason, of giving them out, as we did, being even against our wills forced therunto, by the fro∣wardnes of these our Opposers.

* 1.2First, for the Scornful that printed those articles, they † 1.3 bear the world in hand, as if the Congregation wherof I am, and my self had sued others at the law, for the meeting howse: wheras the contrary was publikly agreed in our Church, that we would rather bear the wrong, than trouble the Magistrate with our controver∣sie: neyther have we ever commenced such a suit. 2. But wheras two of our brethren and a widow, were cheif owners of the building, they sought first in private freindly manner to come to agreement with their opposite brethren, but could not; then they desired to put it to the arbitrement of indifferent citizens, but the other party refused: wherupon our brethren signifyed to vs, that they must seek help of the Magistrate, for the estate of some of them was such as they could not bear the loss and dāmage. And asked us, if the churches right were caled in question▪ (for our adversaries plea was the church the church,) what should be answered before the magistrate? We, with signification as before, that we would rather suffer wrong, then sue at law; yet could not hinder them of seeking for their particular right: & if in so doing the churches right were called in question, that then some certayn appointed, should answer for the same. 3. Those our brethren (before they went to the Iudges,) intreated the help of the Burgemasters, the cheif of the City: who laboured by perswasion with our Opposites, to put the matter to the arbitrement of good men chosen by both sides, but they stil peremptorily refused. 4. When it was brought be∣fore the Iudges, they also at first both perswaded unto, and nomi∣nated

two indifferent men to hear the case: but when our oppo∣sers came before them, they refused to stand to their arbitrement. The Iudges the second time appointed them, with a mulct or for∣feit upō those that refused their arbitrement: but our adverse par∣tie, persisted in their refusal as before: and urged sentence of the Magistrates, and pleaded that they which build on another mans ground, are by law to loose their building; which plea they made, because the as∣surance of the ground was made in the name of one man onely, (now among them,) whose name was used but in trust, for any other might have had the same as wel as hee, as was proved be∣fore the Magistrate by sufficient witness. Now unto these Arbi∣ters appointed, did our brethren willingly referr the cause, and to them (inquiring of the differences) were those Articles exhibited: which it seemeth those Libellers, or their Scribe, by some means that wee know not of, procured a copy of, and so printed them. What cause now have these our opposers, to find such fault with our giving out those articles, which we were constreyned by them selves to doo, unless we should have suffred the truth to have bene troden down? They rather have cause to acknowledge their own stiff & refractary cariage, who would not yeild to any good coun∣sel given them, by our brethren, by Arbiters, or by Magistrates; til law forced them therunto: and so have occasioned many wayes, our cōmon adversaries to rejoyce.

3. But we have not (sayth the † 1.4 Advertisement) as we ought, hand∣led and justified the causes for which we separated; which were annexed at the end of the Treatise on Mat. 18.17. but have gone about also to possess the world with other matters. So † 1.5 after they urge agayn this point, that we leav the Treatise unanswered, which was purposely written upon that occasion and argument. I answer. 1. We handled and justified the cau∣ses for which we separated, by word of mouth in much disputing, before we left them: and this for them was as we ought, and suf∣ficient, according to the Apostles practise, Act. 1••.8.9. And now we are by their importunacie, caled to handle and justifie them be∣fore the world in writing: which whither we doo as we ought, the sequel shal shew, to the judicious reader. 2. It is not we, but they which have gone about to possess the world with other mat∣ters: for the things we charge them with, themselves in effect ac∣knowledge; and as wel as they can doo defend them. But their

declaration against us in the Treat. on Mat. 18. is defective; and the 7. points they article † 1.6 now against us, are superfluous; and inju∣riously wrested against us, as our answers to them shal manifest. The controversie in deed began upon the exposition of Mat. 18.17. but so as we have heard in times past Anabaptists begin controver∣sie upon Mat. 28.19. who have reasoned both from that and al o∣ther scriptures, against the baptising of infants: so these opposites from Mat 18.17. and al other scriptures that we could bring, rea∣soned against the power of the people in judging syn & synners. We formerly * 1.7 professing the Church there to be Elders and peo∣ple joyntly: they now striving that it is not so, but the Elders one∣ly, we knew it must be eyther the name or the power of the church, that they would have. And we never thought them so vayn, as to make such a styrr for a name or title: we held therfore to the power which Christ hath given to his church for judging of them that are within, 1. Cor. 5.4.12.13. Of this when we pressed them, they first gave this answer, that the Elders had the rightful power to excommu∣nicate though without and against the consent of all the people, but not the able power: even as David had rightful power to put Io∣ab to death, but was not able, because others were too hard for him: 2. Sam. 3.39. To which we answered; in matters of this life, which are external, men may be hindred by outward force: but in the spiritual administration of the Church not so: Gods word (by which they administer) is not in bonds, 2 Tim. 2.9. But if one man onely have the power from Christ, he may use it, † 1.8 against all the world. So upon better consideration, a week after, they affirmed the Elders to have both rightful power, and able power, to excommu∣nicate, though without and against the consent of all the people. And thus was ful power put in the Elders hands: & of the people they sayd, their power and right was as in Israel, and in the primi∣tive churches. But being asked what that was? answer was made, it was to be inquired. So the poor people are left to seek their right wher they can find it: the Elders have ynough, they have found that they sought for.

As Paul to disswade the Corinthians from their errour in deny∣ing the resurrection, shewed them the dangerous consequences of the same, as ‘† 1.9 that if ther be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen, then the Apostles preaching was vayn, then the Churches fayth was al∣so

vayn, &c. so I held it my duty to shew the people the consequen∣ces of the former error, which though at first it may seem smal, yet is it as a strong fort in the mouth of a country, which if the enemy win, the whole land is soon lost. For if all the power of recei∣ving in and casting out, were given to the Elders: then our Church which was first gathered and constituted, did receiv in and cast out members without Elders, was not planted by the power of Christ; neyther had they authoritie to set up Elders if they could not a∣gayn vpon desert depose them, and if they had not power to judge their brethren, much less could they judge their Elders. And here came in the gathering of the church by vertue of popish baptisme, and of receiving the ministery from Rome, as wel as the baptisme, and the like, which our opposites were and must necessarily be driven unto, for defense of their errour. And as for the first ga∣thering of this church, they sayd an error in the doing, overthrow∣eth not the action: for Isaak erred in blessing Iaakob in sted of E∣sau, yet the action did stand. To which we answered, that it was doon by a person who had power from God to give the blessing, and the action was also confirmed by the evidence of Gods spirit afterward: but this people (upon our opposites doctrine) had no authority from God, to doo as they did, neyther could they shew any confirmation of the work by God, if our former grounds fayl us.

The sentence given in the end by the Elders that leaned to the Pastors error, was, not that discourse they speak of at the end of the Treatise on Mat. 18. (for that was privately penned afterward by the Pastor himself,) but a breif and yet large approbation of the things which the Pastor had shewed, to be the truth; and a pro∣mise that by the grace of God they would so practise. Vpon which sen∣tence giving, we on the contrary approved our former profession published, and shewed sundry reasons (which hereafter shalbe set down) why we could not yeild to their new vowed practise.

And because they alwayes sought to extenuate the controversie, as if it were but a strife about words, or about the meaning of Mat. 18.17. We purposely prevented it, signifying expressly, be∣fore we parted, that we would bear with them in their understand∣ing of Mat. 18.17. so as they would yeild the point in controver∣sie, (which was about the Churches power,) from other scriptures,

shewing it also by an other case, that if we had to deal upon John. 1. with an Arian that denyes the godhead of Christ, if he would plain∣ly and sincerely yeild to the truth of that doctrine, though he thought it not proved by Iohn. 1, (where yet it is evidently pro∣ved,) we would bear with him therin. And this we still offer un∣feighnedly to these our opposite brethren, let them yet directly and plainly renounce the error it self touching the power of the church now ingrossed into the Elders hands, and the other errours that necessarily flow from the same: and we wil bear with their judge∣ment concerning Mat. 18.17. though we think of it otherweise that doo they.

Moreover seing we offred much more, (which concerneth not onely Mat. 18.17. but al other scriptures,) that we would notwith∣standing our difference of judgement, have continued together, if our former practise might have been reteyned; and themselves in their Advertise∣ment * 1.10 can not deny this: how doo they then bear the world in hand, that the breach among us vvas for the understanding of Math. 18.17?

Touching their Treatise on Mat. 18.17. the causes why I have not answered it are. 1. When others heretofore (as namely Mr. Smyth) wrote against the truth w^ch they formerly professed: we al thought best not to answer, til the second and third time we were excedingly provoked: for we considered how the cōmon adversary would rejoyce at our intestine troubles. The same I minded here▪ and these men should (if they were not partial) have doon the like. 2. I had experience, in former dealing vvith M. Smyth, of his un∣stayednes, that vvould not stand to the things vvhich himself had vvritten: I mind the like in these Opposites, vvho are not setled for the constitution of their Church and Ministerie, upon any ground that I knovv of, unless it be popish succession. Their former vvritings about the Church and ministery, and their present estate, wil not stand togither. Seing those books are unanswered by o∣thers, they should answer them (if they can) themselves; and shew us by Gods word what is allowable, vvhat disallovvable in them. Till they doo this, vvho vvould vvillingly deal vvith them? 3. Ther are 9. reasons in that our “ 1.11 Apologie to confirm the povver of the Church novv in question: the foresaid Treatise dealeth but against one of them, leaving the rest there, and vvhatsoever is vvrit∣ten

of that argumēt in other our books, unansvvered: what reason have they to cal so upon others to write, when so much is already written? If they yeild us the cause, upon the other reasons, we wil not strive about the meaning of one scripture, as before vve shevved.

4. The meaning of Mat. 18.17. is handled by Mr. Robinson a∣gainst Mr Bernard (vvhose book, our opposites so much respected,) and the false gloses upon that text, sufficiently refuted: vvhy doo not these men ansvver the things there vvritten, but cal styl for more; as if al men must leav other studies, to folovv them in their hunting for preeminence. 5. I have had intelligence of Mr. Robinsons further purpose to ansvver in particular that their treatise, as occasion shalbe given. And in deed, I for the love and respect that I have alvvayes had to these novv opposite brethren; have desired their conviction rather by others then by my self; vvho are both better able to perform it, and are likely to be more regar∣ded then I, and to doo it vvith less publik scandal to the vvorld: vvho desire nothing more, then to see us, that vvere so neerly joyn∣ed, to sharpen our penns one against another. Thus have I been stayed hitherto, though novv as the things in that Treatise are re∣peted in this their Advertisement, I shal discover also the insuffi∣ciencie of their reasons there alleged.

Novv as the Advertiser * 1.12 shevveth by examples of troubles in ••hurches heretofore, that the godly vvise should not be offended at these dissensions: accordingly doo I desire all syncere harted for to vvalk. And further that he himself vvith others, vvould look into the 3. particulars that he allegeth. 1. For the troubles in Co∣rinth, the Apostle composeth by shevving the Church their place in Christ above their ministers, 1. Cor. 3.21.22.23. vvhich might also if it vvere vvel observed, end the strife that is novv among us.

2. The contention about Easter, as it vvas evil in it self, being about mens traditions: so vvas it as ill caried. For they learned not to redress things as Paul before taught, 1. Cor. 3. but contrarivveise as Hierom after telleth “ 1.13 us▪ by setting up one Elder about others, that the seeds of schismes might be taken away. Which humane vvisdom further∣ing the mysterie of Antichrist so far prevailed, that about this their Easter strife, Victor Bishop of Rome, determined to have excōmu∣nicated the East churches, and had doon it, but † 1.14 that Irenaeus bla∣med him and stayed it. Thus ambition having vvrung the povver

first out of the vvhole Churches hands into the Elders onely, and then out of the Elders hands joyntly, into ones alone: began to vvork factions and styrrs in the churches, vvorse then ever before.

3. The troubles vvhich they speak of, in the English church at Frankford in Q. Maryes dayes, is even a picture of our present cala∣mities, and vvorthy of perpetual remembrance. For there vvhen M. Horn the pastor vvith his felovv Elders vsurped authority above the church; they vvere vvel vvithstood by the body of the congre∣gation, among vvhom vvere sundry men of vvisdom and learning. And to appease that strife, by the Magistrates counsel they agreed upon articles, vvhich directly overthrovv the errors so stood for by these our opposers. For thus the printed Discourse of the trou∣bles of that church sayth.

* 1.15The Discipline reformed and confirmed by the authoritie of the church and magistrate.

Art. 38. The ministers and seniors severally and jointly, shal have no authority to make any maner of decrees, or ordinances to bind the con∣gregation or any member therof: but shal execute such ordinances and decrees as shalbe made by the congregation and to them delivered.

44. The ministers and seniors elect, have authoritie as the principal members of the congregation, to govern the sayd congregation according to Gods word, and the discipline of the church: and also to cal togither and assemble the sayd congregation for causes and at times, as shal to them seem expedient. Provided alwayes, that if any dissention shal happen between the ministers and seniors, or the more part of them, and the bo∣dy of the congregation, or the more part of it: and that the sayd ministers and seniors in such controversie, being desired therto, wil not assemble the congregation; that then the congregation may of it self come togi∣ther, and consult and determine as concerning the sayd controversie or controversies, and the sayd assembly to be a lawful congregation, and that which they, or the more part of them so assembling, shal judge or decree, the same to be a lawful decree and ordinance, of sufficient force to bind the whole congregation, and every member of the same.

46. Item in case some doo depart [out of the sayd congregation] that yet not withstanding, those which stil remayn, (if they be the greater part) to be a lawful congregation: and that which they or the more part of them shal decree, to be a lawful decree, of force to bind the whole body, ministers, seniors, deacons, and every other member or members therof without exception.

53. If any of the congregation be offensive &c. to any of the brethren,

so that the offense be private, he is first brotherly to admonish him alone. If that doo not prevayl, to cal one or 2. witnesses. If that also doo not prevayl, then to declare it to the ministers and Elders, to whome the Con∣gregation hath given authoritie to take order in such cases, according to the discipline of the Church.

54. Ther be 3. degrees of ecclesiastical discipline: first, that the offender acknowlege his fault, and shew himself penitent before the ministers and seniors. The 2. that if he wil not so doo, as wel his original crime, as al∣so his contempt of the ministers &c. be openly declared by one of the ministers, before the whole congregation &c. The 3. that if he remayn stil obstinate before the whole congregation, after a time to him by the whole congregation limitted to repent in, he then shalbe openly denoun∣ced excommunicate: which excommunicatiō, seing it is the uttermost pe∣naltie of ecclesiastical power, shal not therfore be executed until the mat∣ter be heard by the whole Church, or such as it shal specially appoint ther unto.

62. If al the ministers and seniors [which have authority to hear and determine &c.] be suspected, or found parties, or if any appeal be made from them: that then such appeal be made to the body of the congrega∣tion, the ministers, seniors, and parties excepted: and that the body of the congregation may appoint so many of the congregation to hear & determine the sayd matter or matters, as it shal seem good to the Congre∣gation.

65. That the Ministers and Seniors, and every of them, be subiect to ecclesiastical discipline, and correction, as other private members of the Church be.

67. If any controversie be upon the doubtful meaning of any word or words in the discipline; that first it be referred to the ministers & seniors. And if they cannot agree therupon, then the thing to be brought and re∣ferred to the whole congregation.

These and the like things were agreed of by that church, to sup∣press the exorbitant power which the ministers then chalenged: wherby the reader may see, 1. what the learned and most conscio∣nable of the church of England held heretofore: which if they had continued in, would have freed them of al antichristian prelacie, the bane of so many churches. 2. That this opinion of the churches power above the Elders, is not new, or first professed by us, as some doo reproch us. 3. And that these Advertisers, which now oppose against us, if they had looked upon the exam∣ples which themselves alledge, might have seen their errours re∣sisted by others, against which the Lord hath now caled us also to witness. He vouchsafe to be with us in this busynes; and guide my hart and hand, to defend his truth.

Of the Letter by M. Iohnson answered and published, and by H. Ainsworth now defended. Wherin the Articles of difference between both parties, are set down and discussed.

THree things are to be treated of. 1. The points wherin they are gone frō their former profession. 2. The points wherin they now charge us to differ from our former profession. 3. The conditions of peace, which they re∣fused.

For an entrance into this controversie, M. Iohnson gives 5. ob∣servations. * 1.16 First, that wee left them upon two particular matters, (concerning the Churches government▪ and the exposition of Mat. 18, 17.) & doo not directly keep to them as we ought, nor answer the things printed. I answer: this their beginning is ambiguous and fraudulent. The churches government, is somtime taken largely; sometime strictly: sometime it is spoken of Christ, upon whose shoulders the † 1.17 government is; and hereof ther was no controversie. Sometime it is spoken of the ministerial “ 1.18 ruling and governing the church by Elders: neyther of this doe we make any question; but hold (as ‘† 1.19 hereto∣fore) that Christ governeth his church outvvardly by their mini∣stration. Sometime men use it generally for the whole outward po∣litie, power, and (as many cal it) discipline of the Church: and a∣bout this in part our cōtroversie was. But I wil manifest the frawd. We in our published writings, distinguish the government, and the power: acknowledging * 1.20 government to be by the officers; but “ 1.21 power in the whole body of the Church. And for this point of power, are 9. reasons set down, wherof one is drawn from Christs speech, Mat. 18.17. tel the Church. Apol. pag. 62.63.

Between these two is the matter so conveyed, as while we plead for the churches right and power, we are sayd to oppugn gover∣ment: and when we yeild the Elders to govern, they therby would inclose the whole power in their hands; as in the furder handling of these things shal appear. But if a church have one minister one∣ly, he is to teach and govern them by the word of God: yet is not any one man a Church, neyther hath the power of a Church. Yea

this distinction is in one particular, by themselves acknowledged, in the same book: † 1.22 it is (they say) undenyable, that to give voices in e∣lection is not a part of government, or a duty peculiar to the governours of the church, but an interest, power, right and libertie, that the saincts and people out of office have. Very wel sayd; wherupon we inferr also, that to give voices in ‘† 1.23 deciding of controversies, and judging of synners, is not a part of government, but a power and right that the saincts out of office have. The Elders are to teach direct and govern the church in election of officers; they are to doo the like in judging & excommunicating wicked persons, and in all other publik affairs. Of the exposition of Mat. 18.17. and why their Treatise was not particularly answered, I have spoken before: & the special things therin, are in this treatise repeted, and so shalbe here answered.

2. Their second observation I like wel, & yeild unto; that men may change and redress, according to Gods word, things that are amyss: but withal, I would have them, 1. plainly to acknowledge wherin they erred, and what they stablish for truth; and 2. to take away by Gods word, the reasons wherupon they builded before. Which wither these our opposers have doon as they ought; I leav it for the discreet reader to judge by their writings, compared with those which were published heretofore to the contrary.

3. The third, for the churches goverment by the officers, is that which we alwayes have and stil do yeild to, as even now I shewed. As for our former practise altered, and as he sayth, by me acknowledged: towching the order and manner of the practise in one particular, I grant it; but for the power of the Church, wherof we treat, I deny it. There never was such a practise in my dayes, as wherby the Elders should be esteemed the Church, and to have the povver of the same.

4. The 4. observation is that our exceptions are such as the Anabap∣tists would object in much like manner. Yet dooth he not shew this so to be: and I know, for their successive Ministerie, they are neerer the Anabaptists than wee: & both for it and other points, they build upon the very grounds of poperie, as after shalbe manifested. But what doe vve except? is it not from our former Articles, and Apo∣logie confirmed by scriptures, from vvhich these are departed: in penning also vvherof these that thus vvrite, had a principal hand? So they doo hereby not onely joyn vvith our cōmon “ 1.24 adversaries, vvho intvvite us vvith Anabaptistrie: but impute weaknes to their

ovvn former vvritings and cause, vvherin more strength of truth hath appeared then ever they shalbe able to pul dovvn, hovvsoever they may assayl it.

The 5. observation is a mist cast before the readers eyes, a col∣lection of 7. things vvherin they vvould make men beleev, vve are gone from that vve held heretofore. The errour vvherof I vvil shevv hereafter vvhen (as order requireth,) I have examined the ansvvers that they make for themselves, to these our Articles, vvhich novv next folovv.

The first point of difference: in the Letter.

1. Wheras we had learned and professed, that * 1.25 Christ hath given the power to receiv in or to cut off any member, to the whole body to∣gither 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 A∣pologie, pag. 60.62.63.) professeth that the povver to receiv in, or to cut off any member, is given to the whole body togither of every Christian Congregation, Mat. 18.17. &c. These have pleaded for the Eldership to be the Church, Mat. 18. and to have both rightful power and able power to excommunicate, though without & against the consent of the body of the Congregation.

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

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

For ansvver hereunto, their Advertisement telleth vs many things. First of their Treatise published on Mat. 18.17. touching vvhich, I also have spoken before. Neyther is this point of the Churches power therin plainly handled, but closely caried: neyther is ther any thing at al sayd, to take avvay the other 8. reasons, in our Apologie. Let the reader compare the writings, and judge. There be also

things formerly written both by others and by them selves, touch∣ing 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 El∣ders: 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 chan∣ged,) 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 da∣zel 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 † 1.26 expoundeth this Tel the Church, that is the Prelate, or the Congregation of Prelates; & * 1.27 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. Ar∣ticle, 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 ob∣serving 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

willingly grāt: neither ever doubted of. But we observ withal, a de∣ceyt which they couch under this name Elders: which usually in the old Testament, is given to Magistrates▪ which are also caled in re∣spect 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 for∣bidden 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 † 1.28 did the Preists and Levites:) with the autoritie of the Elders the Magistrates, that * 1.29 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 poli∣tie 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 * 1.30 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, “ 1.31 if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing? or, to the ordinances of worship in the Tem∣ple? nay, for he sayth † 1.32 we have an aultar, wherof they have no authoritie to eat, which serv in the tabernacle. Or were they now to goe up, as * 1.33 did the Tribes to the earthly Ierusalem, where thrones of judgment were set, thrones for the howse of David? nothing so, for Christ was ‘† 1.34 to destroy both Citie & Sanctuarie; so to force the Iewes to an end of their po∣litie. But now the Ephesians were come ؛؛ 1.35 unto the Father, by one Spi∣rit, and unto Christ, who † 1.36 abrogated through his flesh the hatred, that is, the law of cōmandements, which stood in ordinances; and was * 1.37 faith∣ful, as Moses, in al his house: and to be citizens with ‘† 1.38 the Saincts

and howshold of God; which are built, not upon Moses politie that is doon away, but upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, that is the † 1.39 doctrine which they taught of Christ and of the ordinan∣ces of his Testament, which is * 1.40 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 ob∣jection 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 a∣gainst us as they doo, that such is our error, and so great is our trans∣gression and iniquitie. But because of the printed copie, they set up∣on 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 rea∣der. They † 1.41observ 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 pro∣portion 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 * 1.42 Jt becomes yow to be mindfull of your condition, that yow are not Magis∣trates 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 † 1.43 the see of Rome, in the new law, to be answera∣ble to the chair of Moses. Cardinal Bellarmine “ 1.44 maketh his first ar∣gument for the Popes judging of controversies, from the Preist &

Judge that was appointed in the Law, Deut. 17. And as Moses sate as Prince of the Church, and gave answer to al doubts arising about the Law of God, Exod. 18. so by proportion † 1.45 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 ap∣peals; 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 ؛; 1.46 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. ‘† 1.47 D. Whitakers, {punctel}; 1.48 D. Iunius, and others, refuting the Papists, disalow the reasons drawn from the law, and magistra∣cie of Israel; which these our opposers make their cheifest bulwark. M. Cartwright answering D. Whitgift, sayth * 1.49 the argument is not good from civil government to ecclesiastical. When Bellarmine “ 1.50 allegeth the civil Monarchies to justify the ecclesiastical: Iunius answereth, the ؛; 1.51 exāple is altogither unlike, of temporal empire and spiritual ministery: be∣tween 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 * 1.52 Elders, Heads, Judges, & Officers. The Judges agayn differing both in num∣ber and power. In † 1.53 all the cities throughout the tribes, were Jud∣ges, (which the Iew••doctors call the ‘† 1.54 lesser Sanhedrin or Session, and say it consisted of 23. Iudges,) and ‘* 1.55 Officers which “ 1.56 they say were weaponed, and executed the Iudges sentences. In the cheif City * 1.57 Ierusalem were also Iudges and Preists, for the weightiest and hard causes: this * 1.58 they caled the great Sanhedrin, or Session, and it had * 1.59 71. Iudges, of whom first Moses was cheif, and suc∣sessively, one caled * 1.60 Nasi the Prince, next whom they place * 1.61 A••¦beth di••••, the Father of the judgment hall, besides other officers as

two Scribes to write the causes of the condemned & the absolved: ‘† 1.62 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 ‘*’ 1.63 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 weigh∣tiest matters of state, of warrs, of a Tribe, of a False prophet, of appeals brought &c. Also among the Preists and Levits, ther were * 1.64 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 syna∣gogues ther were ‘† 1.65 alwayes lecturers and preachers of the law and prophets, in every citie, and in Ierusalem it self were * 1.66 many syna∣gogues, besides the Temple there. Now they that would pro∣portion 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 clea∣red, 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 Sy∣nedrion 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 * 1.67 hel fyre, there spoken of: neyther could they by Mo∣ses law, condemn a man to death for unadvised anger, as Christ there

God would doo: neyther was every mā, that caled his brother Ra∣ka, to be brought to the Synedrion at Ierusalem, the lesser courts in the cities, could hear and end such matters. The Iew Doctors say, † 1.68that such as bring an evil same on their neighbours, were to be judg∣ed, by the Court of 3. or by that of the 23. but for the high Synedrion, both they and Moses “ 1.69 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, ‘† 1.70 whosoever killeth shalbe culpable of judgment, that is, he should ‘* 1.71 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 * 1.72unadvised anger, should be punished with death by God; and as it did increase and shevv it self in evil speeches, so should their punish∣ment 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; with∣out which they should be cast into a 1.73 the prison of hel: how ever such synns were not punishable by men. But in Mat. 18. Christ speak∣keth of judgments b 1.74 on earth, in this life; and that not of the civil punishments by the Magistrates sword; but of c 1.75 binding and loosing by the word of God, to be performed by d 1.76 the Church, that is, (as Paul e 1.77 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 Magi∣strates, and not of the church ministers, unto whom these would now draw it. For, were * 1.78 the Ministers and preachers of the law in the synagogues; judges in the synedrion? Sheliach Isibbur, Ange∣lus ecclesiae, the messenger of the Congregation, was he the cheif of the sy∣nedrion, 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 f 1.79 2. or 3. gathered any vvhere in his name, vvhich belong∣ed 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 g 1.80 referr us, by Psal. 82. Josh. ••0.4.5.6. Num. 35, 12.24.25.

29. Deut. 19.11.12.16.17. and other like places, being Magistrates, that had 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 * 1.81 nevv Testament, to have nevv rules and ordinances: and that the kingdome being changed aswel as the Preisthood, there must needs be † 1.82a change of the law therof also: or els, let them leave it to the Magistrate, vnto vvhom it belongeth.

Next this, they give us “ 1.83 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 ac∣cording 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 execu∣tion 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 right∣ful 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 Magi∣strates 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 * 1.84Preist 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 † 1.85allege 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

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 * 1.86 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 ‘* 1.87 put the wicked out frō among them, as the Apostle shew∣eth. 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 peo∣ple should in order have executed him: but oft times the heads of the people a 1.88 judged for rewards, the Princes b 1.89 as Lions, the Iudges as Wolves devoured them, the Preists polluted the sanctuarie, and wrested the law. And then the people of the land, c 1.90 whose duty al∣so it was to look to open wickednes, were neyther to folow d 1.91 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 e 1.92 a solemn fast and assemblie of the people with the governours: how in Ieremies case, he was accused f 1.93 to the Princes and people, made his defense to princes and peo∣ple, and was acquitted by princes and people. When g 1.94 King Saul sware that Ionathan should dye; the people sware the contrary, & saved him from death: when the high preists & scribes would have kylled Christ, they feared the people, Luk. 20.19. & 22.2. and the people as wel as the rulers, were caled before Pilate about Christs death, Luk. 23.13. and by their voices prevayled, Mat. 27.20.22.25.26. Luk 23.23. So that to prove the Ministers sole power now, for to cut off a man from the Church, by the Magistrates power then to cut off a man from Israel, neyther is the proportion just, if it were so, neyther yet is it manifested that so it was in Israel. 6. Sixtly, the proportion which they here make, is so misshapen; that I marvel wise men would ever bring it forth to the view of the

world. For they make the avoiding of the excommunicated person by the people, to be the executing of the sentence of excommunication; wher∣as 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 com∣pany 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 ‘†’ 1.95 gave sentence of death upon Christ; the ‘*’ 1.96 souldjers that kylled him with nayles and spear, they executed the sentence of death, as we commonly speak and understand. Then “ 1.97 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 ‘* 1.98should be polluted: did they here by execute him? No more doo they properly execute the sentence of excommunication, which avoyd the company of one excommunica∣ted. 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 † 1.99 they say: in Jsrael, such as would not hear∣ken to the Preists and Judges, were to dye by the hands of the people, Deut. 17. Agayn they say, * 1.100 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 “ 1.101 tel vs, in the Churches excommu∣nication, ther is the giving of a sentence judiciarie, which perteyneth to govern∣ment 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 spe∣cial use of the keyes given by Christ to the Apostles; that the force herof is such, as therby a man is not onely cast out of that particular Church wherof he was a member, but is cutt off & excluded from all churches vpon earth: as on the contrary by baptisme, wee are entred into communion with al Churches of Christ in the world. By these things compared togither, we may

observ: 1. that the church elders may by their sole authoritie give judiciarie sentence, that a man 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 particu∣lar deliver a man to Satan by the power of Christ; which is proportiona∣bly 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 be∣longed both to Magistrates and people in the cōmon wealth. But because they fear the † 1.102 people, they shape them this deceitful pro∣portion, 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 fit∣ly, 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 bapti∣sed by the minister, whether the people keep company with him or not, he is made a member of the church: and as a man behead∣ed 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 o∣ther 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, † 1.103 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 * 1.104higher Court to control unruly Elders, and to help the oppressed. But now 2. or 3. Elders in a Church, bearing themselves upon their forged authoritie from Mat. 18.17.20. may be lawless; and who shal let them in their proceedings? Secondly, how should the people except, when by these mens doctrine, they are not bound

to be present at the hearing and deciding of the controversie: wil it not be a just blame upon them, if they except against a matter, which they have not heard discussed? Thirdly, when the party ac∣cused 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 re∣quire to hear the case debated between the Elders and him? nay, they plead in their Treatise on Math. 18. saying, * 1.105 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 † 1.106wolves 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 * 1.107take 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 gover∣ment, and cast him likeweise out of the Church; that a man some∣time were as good take a Lion by the paw, as except against the El∣ders 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 Isra∣el; doe abridge the people of their right, as before is manifested.

And for the further clearing of it, seing ther were diverse gover∣nours in Israel, as the ‘*’ 1.108 Preists and Levites in the Temple; the

† 1.109ministers in the synagogues; the ‘†’ 1.110 Elders or Magistrates at the gates of the cities, and these also divers and of unequal power, as before ‘*’ 1.111 is shewed: I ask of them agayn, whither now the Elder∣ship 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 au∣thoritie 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 ‘†’ 1.112 I have shewed, but a right and power to ‘*’ 1.113 observ and doo al the com∣mandements 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 syna∣gogues. To the Magistracie, al Christians are to be subject “ 1.114 now, as they were then: for it is an ‘†’ 1.115 humane ordinance, tending to civil peace, and concerneth al men whither within the church or without, indifferently. The external Preisthood of Israel, is ac∣complished in Christ and now abolished, Heb. 7. yet in Davids Kingdom, and Levies preisthood, ther was * 1.116 a figure also of the kingdom and preisthood that ‘*’ 1.117 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 sub∣mission to the ministerial goverment of their ‘*’ 1.118 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 king∣dom and preisthood of Christ by them shadowed, the Israelites were Kings and Preists as well as we, but with differences. For Is∣raels

state and ours, are not simply opposed, yet doo they differ in manner & degree. They were Kings and Preists as they were Chris∣tians, and partakers of the Anoynting, and that is, as they were under the nevv Testament. But they were † 1.119 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 * 1.120sayth) 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 cove∣nant; as in another place “ 1.121 if they did his statutes, they should live by them, which Paul a 1.122 sheweth to be a speech of the law, not of the gos∣pel. Now that condition, Israel b 1.123 kept not, neyther c 1.124 could: ther∣fore 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 d 1.125 scholemaster, & had an external preisthood, which could give them no e 1.126 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. † 1.127With 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 * 1.128 an∣oynting, be that seed of David and of Levi, promised Jer. 33.22. Rev. 5.9.10. & 20, 6. And here I also ask of our opposers, whither the Ministers of the Gospel, be Kings and Preists now, by their office of ministery in the Church.

4. Fourthly they ask, whether the Churches power be not a ministerial

power onely. I answer, the power it self is * 1.129 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 questi∣on 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 be∣fore we have heard; contrary to Christs commandement, Mat. 20, 25, 26. 1. Pet. 5.3. Secondly the vvord ministerial is also diversly u∣sed: in a special sense, the Officers onely are caled “ 1.130 Ministers; in a general sense the whole Church are † 1.131 Ministers, and doo admi∣nister and dispose the manifold graces of God: & the word Cohen, Preist, given to all saincts, dooth properly signify a Minister. Third∣ly 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 secon∣darily, as the * 1.132 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 “ 1.133 syna∣gogues 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 chur∣ches &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 & govern∣ment vvhich they dispute for, is not “ 1.134 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 † 1.135 vvould have. So vvheras our op∣posites

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 * 1.136 kingdom of Preists, that is of ministers: who are to be † 1.137 guided and governed by their Officers, (caled also “ 1.138 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, ؛ † 1.139 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 † 1.140 cō∣firmeth,) vvhich should be of the converted Gentiles: and the Church it self, is the Lords * 1.141 preisthood, and his Ministers.

Sixtly they ask, whither we in the Churches goverment, as the Ana∣baptists 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 ‘* 1.142there is by me answered, I trust without absurdity, or ungodly∣nes, 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 chan∣ged by Christ both for Citie & Sanctuarie, Dan. 9.26. There was al∣wayes one Lord & faith of the Church: but not alwayes one politie. The kingdom and preisthood were first executed by one person, as in a 1.143 Melchisedek: afterward these functions were divided, & Kings might b 1.144 not doo the Preists work. Also the civil government in Isra∣el was c 1.145 changeable, somtime without a King, sometime with one: yea sometime by hethen Kings, as Nebuchadnezar, Cyrus, &c, to whom the Israelites were bound d 1.146 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 oppo∣sites, whether they as the e 1.147 Papists would not draw us frō the testa∣ment of Christ, (vvho was f 1.148 faithful as Moses in al his house,) to the Ievvish politie novv abolished. And let them tell us vvhether ther

may be novv Archbishops, over other Bishops and Ministers, as in Israel there were Archpreists * 1.149 over other Preists and Levites; or a superior court † 1.150 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 ‘* 1.151 Benajah son of Ie∣hojada 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 ‘† 1.152 Discovery, the “ 1.153 Re••i∣tation of M. Gifford, the ‘* 1.154 Apologie, ؛* 1.155 the Treatise of the Ministerie a∣gainst M. Hildersh the ؛† 1.156 Answer to White &c. And I ask of them agayn, why they answer not the things already published in so ma∣ny 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 * 1.157 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 peo∣ples 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 † 1.158 the power of Magistracie over Gods heritage. The Apostle applieth many things from Aarons preist∣hood ‘* 1.159 to Christ: yet he maketh Christs preisthood not to be af∣ter Aarons order ‘† 1.160 but Melchisedeks: should men now thus carp at his allegations?

Then they say, those scriptures speak of civil goverment, which we ex∣cept about the Elders, but they suppose we wil not give to the people civil au∣thoritie. I answer, first them selves grant that the people have as

much right and power now as they had in Israel: but we deny, & they can never prove that the ministers now have as much autho∣rity 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 mat∣ter 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, † 1.161 let al the congregation stone him; and * 1.162 al the Congregation brought him without the host and stoned him. Now by M. Iohnsons own grant, they whom the Iudges condemned, did dye †’ 1.163 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 Prin∣ces, and al the Congregation, this distribution of the persons, togither with the place, the dore of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; may shew

that the Elders onely were not meant: besides in the same chapter, Iosua being there ordeyned over the Congregation &c. it cannot with any colour be gathered, that the Elders onely were the congregation, Num. 27.16.17.19.20. &c. Wherfore when one scripture men∣tioneth 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, † 1.164 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 * 1.165as 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. ther∣fore it was meant of the Congregation of Elders, and so the other peo∣ple were not bound to this service. Agayn, it was cōmanded, Ex∣od. 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, Mo∣ses caled † 1.166 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 conse∣quents: and that it is usual in scripture, to name but the principal of a company, and yet to include others with them? Notwithstan∣ding between Israel and us, there were two mayn differences, the one, that Church ministers now, have not such ecclesiastical autho∣ritie over the people, as is proportionable to the Magistrates auto∣ritie then: for this is forbidden, Mat. 20, 25. vvher Christ sayth, the rulers of the nations have domination over them, and they that are great exercise authoritie over them: but it shal not be so among you. And 1. Pet. 5.2, 3. Feed the flock of God &c. not as having domination over (his) heritage. The other is, that they vvere a national Church, & the Magistrats

in the gates of Ierusalem, the Preists in the Temple, being for the whole Realm; it could not be that al the people should be present at the dayly judgements of the Magistrates, or sacrifices of the Preists. And therfore it vvas not required so of them; as novv it is of us, vvho are but particular Churches, to be present at al publik administration of Christs kingdom and preisthood. Yea even in their most solemn assemblies, they could not doo, as vve ar bound to doo. For they did eat the passeover * 1.167 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 sup∣per) in † 1.168 the publik Church, and not otherwhere.

Wheras therfore they next except, that the people were 600. thow∣sand 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 El∣ders. For I have before shevved, there were divers officers, for se∣veral causes. And Boaz took but * 1.169 ten of the Elders of Bethlehē to hear his cause. The Elders also did meet by themselves as ther was occasion: and so are † 1.170 they to doo now. Secondly for this ex∣ception of so many thowsands in the wildernes, that could not come to hear and judge: they should mind how the same lyeth a∣gainst the execution. When God sayd of the blasphemer, * 1.171 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 † 1.172 of his name, the Son of God: the Iewes might allege, that the Angels are also caled * 1.173 Sonns of God, yea holy † 1.174 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 Hea∣ven opposed to the state of the Iewes church, as Mat. 11.11) but

as the prophets tel us of * 1.175 new heavens under the Gospel, so wil I distinguish and cal the Iewish church the old heaven, (as that which is † 1.176 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, †’ 1.177 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 here∣to: for ther being great expectation of that Kingdom, and an er∣roneous persuasion that it should be a glorious vvorldly state, Christ tells them the contrary, that it vvas for the † 1.178 converted and humble sovvles to enter into: that many scandals and offenses should arise herein, both from ؛* 1.179 the vvorld, and from mens cor∣ruption ‘.’ 1.180 in them selves, and from * 1.181 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 assu∣reth them that their censures executed on earth, shalbe ratified ‘{inverted †}’ 1.182 in heaven: the ground vvherof is his *’ 1.183 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, hi∣therto 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

brought to the Congregation of Elders. This I deny in their under∣standing, who make this to be one with the Synedrion or Council of Magistrates, in Mat. 5.22. (which place I have also treated of * 1.184be∣fore,) and I affirm it to be the Christian Church or Congregation of faithful people, the spowse and bride of Christ, with whom his † 1.185power is left to judge al synners within the same; their Elders gui∣ding and governing them in their judgments. For the outward form of the Iewish Church was abolished * 1.186by Christ; the common wealth of Israel dissolved, and given up to the Romanes, whose Caesar † 1.187 they preferred before Christ. The Temple ‘.’ 1.188 ruinated, the ministerie “ 1.189 also changed, and the ordinances, though in ma∣ny 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 * 1.190 came togither to the word and sacraments, came also to∣gither † 1.191to judge and cast out obstinate synners, and were ‘* 1.192 all bla∣med for the neglect of this duty, as for any other. And for deciding controversies, the Apostles, Elders, and brethren did “ 1.193 come togi∣ther with one accord. And such order continued in Churches some yeres after the Apostles, for Tertullian relateth the manner of Chri∣stian assemblies in his time, †’ 1.194 how they came togither into a con∣gregation, 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 Cy∣prian Bishop of Carthage a 1.195 sheweth how with him mens causes were handled not onely before the Elders but b 1.196 the whole multitude: with∣out whose consent also, c 1.197 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 El∣ders, 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 o∣mitt what heretofore wee answered them, when they fished about

this matter: namely that the whole church of men women & chil∣dren are to be present at ecclesiastical judgments, as at al other publick administrations of the church, wher whatsoever is perfor∣med, is doon † 1.198 by prayer and the ministration of the word, that al may receiv instruction by the word there ministred, and as is written * 1.199 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 ‘.’ 1.200 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 ‘؛’ 1.201 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 co∣lour 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, be∣cause they say † 1.202 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; * 1.203 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 wo∣men 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 fa∣ther from the son? &c. They that compare these two writers, may see how they wrote by one spirit, and almost with one pen. Yet be∣cause

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 * 1.204 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, † 1.205in 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 “ 1.206 that they shal put the sentence in ex∣ecution, 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 rea∣son of a pregnant note which they give in their * 1.207 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 † 1.208 prac∣tise 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 exa∣mineth and carieth matters: and then the people if there be de∣fect 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 pu∣blick 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 deal∣ing of the Elders. 6. It is also to be observed how these our opposites wil require by their proportion from Israel, children

to stone their parents, wives their husbands, and servants their maysters, by avoiding their cōmunion: yet wil they not have thē to be of that church which is to hear, examine & judge of the cau∣ses 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 fa∣thers, 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 ex∣cept, 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 fun∣ctions, 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 * 1.209 di∣versities of gifts, Ministeries, and operations in the church, as they are given to to “ 1.210 every man to profit with all; and nameth in particular the * 1.211gifts, operations and ministeries, and among the rest the † 1.212 gover∣nours or governments: and ther is no church action, which the A∣postle 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 fun∣ctions 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 * 1.213 of the church; they are for the help and service ofa 1.214 all; they help to b 1.215 build up the bo∣dy of Christ. Vnless they would have us think, that the Elders pre∣lacie 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

the church is to judge, as † 1.216 Paul teacheth? And would th'Apos∣tle also inferr (think they) that infants should rebuke and judge un∣beleevers, because he sayth, * 1.217 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, be∣cause he sayth, ;؛; 1.218 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 † 1.219 the manifestation of the spirit is given to every one to profit withal; they to conclude, therfore the yongest children newly baptised can mani∣fest the spirit to the profit of others. We have bene “ 1.220 all made to drink into one spirit: therfore infants also were partakers of the Lords sup∣per. ‘† 1.221 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 ey∣ther 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, deci∣ding of questions &c. I answer, that is true, for infants (as they ex∣cepted,) have not. But that onely the Elders have fit gifts for such purposes, is untrue: the ‘* 1.222 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

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 abu∣sing us before the world: we look not in any case to the greatest num∣ber, eyther of people or Elders: but in al cases we look to Gods law and testimonie as we are † 1.223 commanded; vvhich vvhen it is shevved by vvhom soever, al ought to yeild unto. We knovv neyther the multitude, * 1.224 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 ؛;؛ 1.225 an Angel from heaven,) may ca∣ry us from the vvritten vvord, by vvhich the Godly people tried e∣ven the Apostles doctrine, ‘†’ 1.226 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 a 1.227 two hundred thowsand lambs and ramms, which were due yerely from Moab to the Kings of Iu∣dah, & were wrongfully chalenged and taken by the Kings of Sa∣maria: but caried away also the title of the Church, being usually even by al the Prophets b 1.228 named Jsrael, wheras Iudah and Benja∣min were Israel as wel as Ephraim and the rest, yea in deed they were the onely Israel of God, as the scripture c 1.229 counteth Israel. Yet did not the faithful respect this greater number, but left † 1.230 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 electi∣on of officers (which they stil allow, if it may continue,) must not the greater number of voices cary the thing? And yet there is no action of the church, that needeth more wisdom, government or circumspection then this. And therfore many precepts are left for the careful and holy performance of it, 1. Tim. 3. & 5. Tit. 1. And wil not the Papists now cast the reproches on their own faces, as

they that would have the multitude stil folowed, as if there were no diffe∣rence 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 Tea∣cher that are learned, and 3. or 4. ruling Elders, which are as un∣learned 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 * 1.231 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 ••avour∣eth the things of God aright, wil abhorr such an unruly prelacie. For if these Elders prove such as Paul foretold of, † 1.232 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 hun∣dred yeres: what havock & miserie wil not they bring upon Gods people? And if we add unto this their other opiniō of Gods cove∣nant 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, † 1.233 though in er∣ror, and though never so erroneously caried, and though they be of the most simple: as if they would perswade men, that the Elders usually through their wisdom and godlynes walked aright, and the people through simplicitie and errour went astray. Wheras if eyther the scriptures be searched, or humane histories, or the present state of churches be looked upon, we shal see the greatest errours, heresies, schismes and evils to have both arisen and been continued by the Elders,

preists and learned Rabbines in al ages: even Christ himself found no greater enemies then the † 1.234 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 † 1.235 hath forbidden. For (besides that one man may judge ac∣cording to law,) both the princes of * 1.236 Israel, and the princes of ؛؛; 1.237 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 ‘† 1.238 They that bid the Law bear rule, doe bid God to bear rule by his own voice: but they that bid man bear rule (mea∣ning without law) doo bid a beast to bear rule.

6. Here also they doo violence to the Apostles similitude of a body, and say, ؛; 1.239 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 & determina∣tion 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 peo∣ple that see more then all their Elders, being illuminated as was

David * 1.240 by Gods precepts: & what if the Elders be blind guides as a 1.241 Christ caleth some, & without understanding, b 1.242as the prophet cōplay∣neth? Then men must leav the blind Eldership, and goe to the pru∣dent 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 di∣rect against the Apostles meaning: who because of dissentions in the church of Corinth, sheweth c 1.243 by that similitude of a body, that the chiefest members have need of the inferiour, and the head d 1.244 can∣not 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,† 1.245which 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 bo∣dy, as that he cannot be an other. The Prophets in Israel were * 1.246 Seers, and so in sted of eyes in the head: but when they “ 1.247 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 min∣ded like Achitophel “ 1.248 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, a 1.249 a poor wise man, that delivered the citie by his wisdom: though both he and his wisdom were despised. A b 1.250 wo∣man in Abel when it was in danger to be spoyled, c 1.251perswaded al the people with her wisdom to cut off Shebaes head; and so preserved

the city. Was she in this action, a part of the foot, or of the hart and head in that body, may we think? 4. Finally, this their reasoning is one with the Iesuits, that exclude the people frō church affayrs. The Church (sayth d 1.252 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 argu∣ment, and thus doo these men answer ours.

6. Yet have they not sayd ynough, but they will make it e 1.253 Anti∣christian 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 mem∣bers may be absent? The Apostle writing to the Church of Co∣rinth, how to doo when † 1.254 they came togither for the Lords supper, writeth also to them how * 1.255 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 un∣derstand Gods law, that when it commandeth us any thing, it dooth also command us to use al means for the right and holy per∣formance 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 ؛’ 1.256 thow shalt not slay the innocent, to look that he were duly convic∣ted of the crime: and now by this law, ‘† 1.257 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 con∣victed, least * 1.258 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

the consciences of the Church.

But they allege further, the Elders are to have maintenance for the do∣ing of it and of the other duties &c. I answer, let them then excōmu∣nicate alone, as wel as try the case alone: seing they have mainte∣nance 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,* 1.259 men must leav their trades, women their families, children their scholes, ser∣vants their work, and come to hear and judge cases that fall out between bro∣ther & 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. Se∣condly many cōtroversies between neighbours, are for civil things of this life: such are * 1.260 not church matters, nor there to be heard, but by † 1.261 Magistrates, or “ 1.262 arbiters chosen. 3. Thirdly for doubt∣ful cases ecclesiastical, people are to inquire the law ‘* 1.263 at the Preists mouth, and to ask counsel of their Elders severally or joyntly, who are to have their ‘† 1.264 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 sab∣bath day; wherin all men are * 1.265 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, ‘†’ 1.266 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 wor∣ship &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; * 1.267 Jt is not lawful (they say) to judge on the Sabbath, or on a festival day: yea further, that † 1.268 mat∣ters of life and death may not be judged on the evening of the Sabbath, or on the

evening of a festival day, least [the accused] be found guilty, and it be impossible to kyl him on the morow. I account civil controversies, of things perteyning to this life (as * 1.269 Paul caleth them,) to be of our own works, which by the law, “ 1.270 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 a 1.271 circumcision, b 1.272 kylling, slaying, cutting and burning of sacrifi∣ces, which was very laborious work, and even a c 1.273 breach of the sab∣bath 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 them∣selves d 1.274 compare the casting out by excōmunication, with the con∣trary receiving in by baptisme. Al churches baptise on the Sab∣bath, 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 e 1.275 heal the body: and is it unlawful to heal f 1.276 the sowl? It was lawful to save a g 1.277 sheep from dying in a ditch: and is it not lawful to h 1.278 save a sowl from death, and cover a multitude of synns? Seing therfore the Sab∣bath 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'Apos∣tles 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 i 1.279 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 contro∣versie.

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,* 1.280 & this not onely when it hath officers, but also when it want∣eth 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, re∣ceiving 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 con∣firmeth, pag. 45. professeth that people being come forth of the Antichri∣stian 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 communi∣on 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,* 1.281 that God hath thus layd upon the people without officers to excōmunicate? where is the precept for it? which be the ex∣amples 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 * 1.282 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

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 Anabap∣tists deny baptisme of Children, caling for scripture, example, pre∣cept, & 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 Chris∣tians without † 1.283 union with Christ? And if men cannot be uni∣ted with his members and body, because ther wanteth Elders, how should they be united with him the head? 4. They have it pro∣ved 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 inferi∣our Preists: whom yet they wil not suffer to excommunicate, with out the Bishop or his Official, as these wil not the Church, with∣out an Eldership. The examples of excommunicating by the Ru∣lers 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 consci∣ences

of evil doers, though they had wanted ministers of the Tem∣ple, 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 * 1.284not 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 El∣ders may not excommunicate, any more then minister the sacra∣ments: 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, * 1.285 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 † 1.286 keeping it, God deprive them of finding it any more. But I wil help them, if it may be by their own writing, where this same author sayth, a 1.287 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 b 1.288 pub∣lick body, a church, a citie, a kingdom, and that of Jesus Christ, who is pre∣sent 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 testimo∣nie, concerning a howse; d 1.289 Christ, is the chief corner stone:c 1.290 and Chris∣tians that come unto him, as lively stones are made a spiritual howse, an holy Preisthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices. Men come un∣to Christ by “ 1.291 beleef, and are joyned unto him and one to ano∣ther

by mutual a 1.292 covenant. The ministers of Christ are as b 1.293 buil∣ders of this howse, by preaching the gospel, laying first the foun∣dation Christ, then upon him Christian people, Gods building. But if (as often cometh to pass,) the c 1.294 builders doo refuse, yet the Lord without them putteth Christ for head of the corner, and cau∣seth the faithful to d 1.295 come unto him, and maketh them his † 1.296spiri∣tual howse to dwel in them, whose howse they continew to be, not by having officers alway among them, but by * 1.297 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 them∣selves. 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 El∣ders want or refuse: though he as is written, * 1.298 walketh among his Churches and † 1.299 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 conside∣ration. I answer, true it is, they sought alwayes to hide their er∣rors, and to put off things which pressed them, to further conside∣ration, and the Elders having gott the Churches power into their hands, they lysted not to scan the peoples right. But we were ne∣cessarily 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 doc∣trine. And vvho can soundly discuss any question, if they look not to the foundation; as Christ sayd to the Pharisees, f 1.300 from the be∣ginning it was not so.

6. Finally, vvheras vve shevved hovv their doctrine overthroweth the constitution of their Church; as being vvithout povver from Christ, they say, First it were worth the knowing by whom the first man or two

men of this church were received in, and by what power. I ansvver, it is true they say; and pray them therfore to shevv by vvhat povver their church began, if they vvould have men acknovvledge it for true, and planted by the povver of Christ Othervveise they must renounce their estate, and begin a nevv. As for ours, it is shevved in our published vvritings, vvhich if they can, let them disprove; as, in Treat. of the ministerie, against M. Hildersh. p. 73.74. Apolo∣gie, 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 in∣to 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, un∣less 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 di∣vert 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 a 1.301one 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 * 1.302 words lead me to this, if I gather amyss let them pardon me, & shew their meaning plain∣ly: for, † 1.303 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 “ 1.304 passed into the covenant renu∣ed by Moses; when ‘† 1.305 al the men under 40. yeres old, were uncir∣sed: besides al the women.

3. They thirdly say, it is playn and undenyable that to chuse or give voi∣ces

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 need∣ful, seing they know the Papists and other Prelates deny such electi∣ons without officers. The Prelates wil shew them sundry exam∣ples, 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 at∣tempted 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 dis∣proov 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 cari∣age 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 * 1.306 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 Mi∣nisterie unto a man: how then do these administer, which renoun∣ced some of them their former office and preisthood given by the Prelates, and as private men received a nue caling and ordination:

others from private estate, were constituted Elders by the people. Is this Ministerie now from heaven, or from men?

4. Lastly they say, seing their doctrine overthroweth not the constitution of the Church of Jsrael, nor of the primitive Churches, it cannot therfore over∣throw 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 quae∣stion. 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 † 1.307 from heaven, and they are to let it fal, and be ‘* 1.308 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,* 1.309 that every Christian congregation hath pow∣er and cōmandement to elect and ordeyn their own Mini∣sterie, according to the rules of Gods word: and upon such default in life doctrine or administration, as by the rule of the word depri∣veth them of the ministerie, by due order to depose them from the minis∣terie they exercised, yea if the case so require, orderly to cut them of by excommunication. But now it is by some mainteyned, that the Congre∣gation 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 ex∣communicate 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.

* 1.310Hereunto 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 rea∣der aside. The article speaketh of chusing and ordeyning, and so put∣ting 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 † 1.311 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, * 1.312 that it implieth the power we have over our selves, wheras ex∣communication 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 them∣selves h••ve deposed al the Bishops of England long agoe. But whe∣ther this be not to aequivocate with the word depose, let wise men j••dge: for a litle after they ask † 1.313 whether it can be shewed by any scrip∣ture, that any did ordeyn or depose officers, but Governours. Now wheras

our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Apologie is confirmed by many scriptures & rea∣sons 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 * 1.314 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 particu∣culars 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 ar∣gument, which yet is against them, not for them at all, as our Cō∣fession and Apologie sheweth. In Israel the * 1.315whole 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 Egyp∣tian or Babylonian preists to minister in their sanctuary? or did the primitive churches ever take any Bishop of the † 1.316 Antichrists that were in there time, & set them by vertue of their Antichristian or∣dination 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 of∣ten so used elswhere, and yet not here. When we reason from Heb. 1.8. O God thy throne is for ever, to prove Christs Godhead: the Arians object, that Princes and Magistrates are often caled Gods, Psal. 82. Exod. 21.6. but is that a sufficient answer? 2. Secondly that

which these say, is here true, but not the whole truth. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Elders, are meant as principals, but not they to be al the congregation: which I thus manifest. The Levites now to be ordeyned Ministers, were taken in stead of al the firstborn of Israel, and not in stead of the first∣born of the Elders onely: Num. 3.40.41. The Levits were now to be offred before the Lord, as a shake offring of the children of Is∣rael, 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 pre∣sented 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 Of∣ficers 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 pub∣lik affayrs in the Tabernacle: unless they think, that al the people never heard or did any thing there. When the whole Congrega∣tion 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 of∣ficers, 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, * 1.317 thou shalt sprinkle water, thou shalt bring them before the Lord &c. and then † 1.318 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

when † 1.319 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, Ex∣od. 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 ho∣nour 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 go∣verment, 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 pe∣culiarly 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 fami∣lies, or other fittest members impose hands. For it is not proper∣ly a work tyed to the magistrates office: 1. because then the chur∣ches in the Apostles times wanting Magistrates, could not have had Ministers: but they † 1.320 had, and yet never intruded into the Magi∣strates 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 ‘* 1.321 God, to be ‘† 1.322 heads of the Common weales (whether they be mēbers of the church “ 1.323 or not,) as Christ hath his office under God to be *’ 1.324 head of the Church: and these two goverments are so dis∣tinct, as they neyther may be confounded, neyther doo one take in hand the work peculiarly belonging to another. Christ pro∣fessed

his * 1.325 kingdom not to be of this world, neyther medled 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the † 1.326 outward sword, nor “ 1.327 civil controversies: neyther on the other side, might the Kings of Israel medle with the Preists work, *’ 1.328 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, judg∣ing of controversies, punishment of malefactors &c. So Nebu∣chadnezar the Babylonian lawfully a 1.329 (as concerning God,) reign∣ed over the Iewes, and did b 1.330 set over them a governour, and put some of them to death c 1.331 for adulterie & other evils. And the Iewes were bound to obey him and his substitutes, and to d 1.332 pray for his cōmon wealth. But to the Babylonian Preists they might not be subject. Neyther doo I think that our opposites wil say, Nebu∣chadnezar and his Princes might give office of Ministerie, or im∣pose 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 mul∣titude of them could not perform it: which order al churches now are * 1.333 bound to keep for ever. And this which I have sayd, the words of the text in their natural sense doo confirm, † 1.334 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 †† 1.335 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 Ma∣gistrates; 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 impo∣sed hands, according to that rule, Lev. 4.15. Yea the word Elders

dooth not alwayes (though often) mean Magistrates or ministers by office, but * 1.336sometime 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 no∣thing for them. They say such as are caled Elders, Lev. 9.1. are ca∣led 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 in∣tended, I deny it: the whole chapter after manifesteth the publick church to be meant. For when Aaron had offred his own † 1.337 syn-of∣fring, and * 1.338burnt-offring; then offred he the “ 1.339 peoples syn-offring, and their burnt-offring, and their peace offrings: and after lifted up his hands to the people and † 1.340 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 Js∣rael in Greek the Eldership: is not of weight, though the translators should have minded as doo their Commenters. But they purpo∣sed 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 † 1.341 turned in Greek the synedrion, they * 1.342 skore it up, as making for their Eldership: but though it be once, twise and thrise turned ‡ 1.343 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 Js∣rael, 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

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 a∣ny 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 unor∣derly then when every church ordeyneth them in it self: the Apos∣tles 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 a∣nother. So should al ministers be bounded within their own char∣ges, and not chalenge catholik authoritie in al churches, as dooth the † 1.344 lawless usurping man of syn, Antichrist. Thirdly, the scrip∣tures and reasons in our Articles and Apologie, serv also for the or∣dination 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 main∣teyn, against al popular confusion and disorder whatsoever. And M. Iohnson himself hath expressly defended this truth heretofore against M. Iaakob, * 1.345 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 pro∣testantes, saying, † 1.346 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 Mini∣sters,* 1.347 unto such offices and in such manner as God hath pre∣scribed in his word. But now these wil execute a ministerie, which have not rightly been caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers, accor∣ding to their own account and doctrine: which hold (as before) that a people without officers have no warrant from God, to make or depose Mi∣nisters.

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.) testi∣fieth 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 practi∣sed 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 o∣ther 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 concern∣ing one of their Ministers, about imposition of hands, that is a point also left

to further consideration, &c. I answer, no, we mean others of them that were Ministers before, and such as have had (some of them,) imposition of hands 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 o∣ther things not there intended. Let them therfore in their next, bring a playn defence of their Ministerie, which by their new doc∣trine 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 a 1.348 proved Antichrists baptisme to be not a true but a false sacrament; but now they plead for it b 1.349 to be the one true baptisme of Christ: so having heretofore witnessed against the whole Antichristian c 1.350 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 ordi∣nance also; though by them abused to idolatrie. Yea thus the Iewes that d 1.351 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 imposi∣tion 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,

••. 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 * 1.352 is a sacrament, the outward signe or rite wherof, is imposi∣tion of hands: the thing signifyed, is the promise of grace. They have se∣ven † 1.353 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 a 1.354 onely can give this or∣der) it is sayd, b 1.355 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 conse∣crated 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 c 1.356 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 d 1.357 conferreth grace; and if any shal say, that the holy Ghost is not given hereby, let him (sayth the Council of Trent e 1.358) be accursed. This is that holy ordina∣tion (or rather, that abominable Idol, and f 1.359 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 g 1.360 set down heretofore 33. reasons and dif∣ferences proving by many scriptures, that the popish preists office,

is not the Christian Pastors office. Yea he affirmed the h 1.361 hierar∣chie 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 scrip∣ture, 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 charac∣ter 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 an∣swer, 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 a 1.362 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 b 1.363 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 c 1.364 Divil, with greasing, shaving, & imposing of hands, to sacrifice blasphe∣mously 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 d 1.365 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 Beli∣als clergie. And this M. Iohnson himself acknowledged, when he

wrote against M. Hilderdersh. thus, g 1.366 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, sacra∣ments and censures: would it follow therfore that such Preists had the sub∣stance of the Pastors office? And why then should this Preisthood of An∣tichrist 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 con∣clude 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, ther∣fore they were not baptised. But doo not they know, that argu∣ments 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 mi∣nisterie, caling, & ordination signified by the sign? I hope the refor∣med 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 Minis∣terie of Rome togither: no new baptising into the church, ther∣fore no new ordeyning unto the ministerie: but as al come out of the Apostasie baptised Christians, so some doo come ordeyned mi∣nisters. Wherfore if these be alike, they bring with them in their account, the substance of a true * 1.367 office and of a true † 1.368 caling. Other∣weise if a new office and caling be given them, I assure my self they that say Receiv the Teachers office &c. may impose hands: even as they that say: J baptise thee into the name of the Father &c, may put on

water. Now these mens testimonie heretofore hath been strong a 1.369 against the Office or ministerie it self, with the caling, ad∣ministration &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 chur∣ches &c. I answer, this reason is good, if communion be kept in the b 1.370 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 c 1.371detest 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 d 1.372 Trent, accursed. Is not here good communion? Yea let me further tel them, how the learned and better sort in England, have disclay∣med cōmunion with that Romish clergie. D. Fulk, in the Answ. of a true Christian to a counterfeyt catholik, sayth, e 1.373Although 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, Dea¦cons, 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, al∣low 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 f 1.374 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.

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 ordi∣nation 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 be∣fore: or chose him from a false office to a true: or chose him be∣ing 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 & ordinati∣on? 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 ordina∣tion 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 al∣so 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

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 mani∣fest; let these men take heed how they so dissemble, for * 1.375 Woe vnto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord. Of the Anabap∣tists objections we have spoken before. And now let him that read∣eth, consider, what weight ther is in their later thoughts, compa∣red 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 no∣thing, 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, † 1.376 who can bring a * 1.377 clean thing out of filthynes? Is it possible that a lawful or∣dination, 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 “ 1.378 heavē; considering the Preists have their authoritie from the Bishops, the Bishops from the Pope: the Popes (as their own writers & Chroni∣clers doo record,) have been divided by schismes, 2, or 3, a 1.379 Popes at once, one cursing and condemning another, and among the suc∣cessors, one repealing b 1.380 the acts of an other. And among the rest, one shee c 1.381 Pope Ioan an harlot. And among many schismes one (which was the 22.) dured d 1.382 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 Mini∣sterie 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 e 1.383 promised,) that they wil goe to Antichrists throne for to erect a ministerie for them?

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 f 1.384 the Bishop of the whole world, as also to have the g 1.385 Princedom (or soveraygntie) of al the world; and may not onely order and degrade preists, but set up and depose Princes, so exal∣ting himself above h 1.386 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 i 1.387 King Iohns time,) to have the Prince his vassal, as wel as the Preists his subjects: so is his wil to doo al∣wayes 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 Vsur∣per, 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 * 1.388 con∣sume 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 ab∣surditie,* 1.389 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.

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 pla∣ces quoted, as the reader may there see.

Against these their former testimonies they now “ 1.390 thus dispute. 1: Jt is true baptisme: as the circumcision in Jsraels Apostasie was true cir∣cumcision. I answer, these are their own assertions: but we would hear, Thus sayth the Lord. True circumcision was the seal of the righte∣teousnes 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 for∣givnes 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. a 1.391 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 1.392 divils, 2. Then foloweth c 1.393 Exorcisme that is, adjuration of the Divils to goe frō the man that is to be baptised. 3. After that comes d 1.394 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 Eu∣charist. 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.* 1.395 8. When he is thus sanctified, a name is given unto him. 9. He must have Godfathers or Godmothers, to instruct him in time to come. 10. Then folowes consecration of the water, 11. And a dipping three times into

the water, in the name of the Father of the Son & of the holy Ghost. 12. After comes * 1.396 the kyss of peace, in sign that the brother is bap∣tised. 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 ‘* 1.397 conferr grace, and in very deed f 1.398 taketh away al synns, so as they are not one∣ly 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, g 1.399 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 † 1.400 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 (h 1.401 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 i 1.402Christ God and man, and to his most precious blood, which onely clenseth us from al syn. 2. because true baptisme be∣ing a sign of the k 1.403 washing away of synns, and a seal of the righte∣ousnes 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 l 1.404 dam∣nation, 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 m 1.405 re∣penting & forsaking their false synagogues and lying signes in thē usurped, needed not a new outward cutting or circumcising, as is

shewed at large in our former writings, Discoverie, p. 116.—120. Apo∣logie p. 110.—113. For though the degree of syn in Rome be greater by farr then that of Apostate Israel, (as elswhere a 1.406 is also manifes∣ted:) yet seing they then were fallen b 1.407 from God and from his church, and so were c 1.408 divorsed from the Lord, and were d 1.409 not his wife, but e 1.410 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 f 1.411 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 a∣goe objected by the enemies of the truth, and refuted by a 1.412 M. Bar∣row. We have gotten the Lords baptisme by coming to the Lord in true faith and repentance, who b 1.413 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 c 1.414 false Sacra∣ment, 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

is the same argument with the former, and before answered.

2. This ground from Eph. 4.5. was that which d 1.415 Cyprian builded on, who taught rebaptising of such as had been baptised by here∣tiks: 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 trou∣ble us and the world with questions.

4. Furthermore (they argue) such baptism is eyther a seal of Gods cove∣nant 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 (be∣sides 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 Cypri∣ans error (though I am farr from it) for a new washing: then ap∣prove the sacrilegious washing used by that man of syn with most high dishonour to the blood of Christ, to be that one true Christi∣an 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 Ba∣bylon, Ier. 51, 45. therfore Babylons sacrifices, and sacraments,

were true. Who would not rather conclude hereby the contrary: God caleth his people out of her, therfore she vvith all her coun∣feyt service, sacraments & apish imitation of Gods holy things, are detestable and cursed. Agayn, a people may be Gods, though un∣baptised: as the uncircumcised Israelites vvere Gods people, Deut. 29.10,—13. vvith Josh. 5, 4, 5. The 3. point of Israels circum∣cision 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 † 1.416 calves: some perverted by men from holy signes to Idols, as * 1.417the brazen Serpent. Both these kinds are in popish bap∣tisme. 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 tur∣ned into an Idol as was the brazen Serpent. Thus is there a mixture in Antichrists Christening, of both sorts of abominations. Ther∣fore 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 “ 1.418 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 un∣to God, or divine grace, it is nothing: and thus th'Apostle mea∣neth as his next words shew, * 1.419 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

seal up unto them the forgivnes of synns, and (as they blasphemous∣ly 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 Anti∣christian synagogue, it is not appointed to salvation, but to con∣demnation 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 baptis∣me in it self considered, is Christs ordinance: for the brazen a 1.420 Ser∣pent was in it self Gods ordinance at first, and a sacramental signe of their redemption by b 1.421 Christ, yet they that burnt incense to it, made it an Idol, and therfore as c 1.422 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. Per∣kins sayth, and proveth it, d 1.423 The Church of Rome transformeth the sacra∣ments to Jdols, by teaching that they conferr grace ex opere operato, by the work doon &c. To this effect (sayth he) the e 1.424 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 f 1.425 God himself, & Christ, being worshiped in, at, or before an image, is presently transformed into an idol. But what need I insist up∣on other men; even Mr Iohnson himself, hath pleaded g 1.426 the Prelates and Preists (which administer baptisme) to be Jdol shepheards, the h 1.427 sa∣craments to be not true but false; and citeth against them their own testimonies to prove that i 1.428 Christ himself is made an idol among thē. Yet loe how he now inveigheth against us, for saying that the ba∣ptisme 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, k 1.429 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 m 1.430 name of the Father the Son & the holy Ghost, so in the Mass, they use n 1.431 Take eat this is my body &c.

Now why should one of these sacraments be true, and not an other? Al that are not Antichrists bondmen, detest his Mass as a mon∣strous idol: let them that lyst, honour his baptism. Agayn, excō∣munication is Gods ordinance as wel as baptisme: and these our op∣posits say, a 1.432 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 contra∣ry 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 com∣munion of them that they excommunicate. Now for asmuch as these our Opposites themselves (besides al other) that have separa∣ted 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 d 1.433 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 an∣swer the Papists, who b 1.434 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 can∣del: Harding answereth; c 1.435 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 in∣corrigible. And what wil they say to the Synedrion, the represen∣tative church of England, whose d 1.436 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 e 1.437 is a fearful syn, (their Church be∣ing 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

mean time, men wil more regard the church, then him that is cast out of the Church: and according both to a 1.438 Christs doctrine, & the doctrine of the Church b 1.439 of England, he should be estemed an hethen and publican. 2. Agayn many have been cast out for con∣temptuous refusing to come unto the Bishops synedrion, & they have left those Bishops, Ministers, Consistories & Churches, as be∣ing al false and Antichristian, unto c 1.440 whom no church duty of ad∣monition &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 ex∣cōmunicated, 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 Idola∣ters and their seed, the d 1.441 generation of Vipers which Iohn Baptist would refuse. Yea Mr Iohnson himself hath sayd of a better estate then Romes, that f 1.442 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 colou∣rablie 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 g 1.443 histories mentiō to be circumcised; or the Samaritans, whom Mr Iohnson h 1.444 acknow∣ledgeth to have stil vsed circumcision. Hereunto we may add out of the Iewish records, how they hold, that l 1.445 Al have leav to circumcise, yea though it be an uncircumcised person, or a servant, or a woman, or a child, cir∣cumcising in the place where ther is no man. But an hethen may not circum∣cise at al: yet if he doo circumcise, ther is no need to return & circumcise the second time. If this rule stand, we shal not need to repeat our outward washing in baptism, though given us by Antichrist, or any other aliants from the church & covenant of promise.

Of the Church of Rome.

The Church of Rome being acknowledged by al that fear God, to be the throne of Antichrist, & Mr Iohnson himself having pro∣fessed, a 1.446 that the hierachie and Church-constitution of Antichrist, is the most detestable anarchie of Satan that ever was: yet imitating now M. Gifford, M. Bernard▪ and other professed enemies of the truth, he pleads for that Church after this manner. b 1.447 The Apostle expressly teacheth, that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God, 2. Thes. 2, 4.▪ And by the Temple understanding the Church of God, it wil folow that Anti∣christ should sit in the Church of God, and is there to be sought and found, and not among Jewes, Turks, Pagans &c. neyther that Antichrist takes away wholly the church of God, and every truth and ordinance of the Lord &c. I answer, truth & errour are closely couched togither in this their plea: for the discerning wherof, we are to consider, first how An∣tichrists church is described in Gods word; secondly what the state of the church of Rome is at this day. The Antichristian synagogue is by the holy Ghost caled a c 1.448 Beast, which signifyeth a d 1.449 kingdom: it is named also a e 1.450 great citie, which noteth the largenes of that po∣litie and kingdom. It cometh up f 1.451 out of the earth, as being of this world, (which Christs kingdom that g 1.452 cōmeth down from heaven is not:) and therfore is caled h 1.453 a man of syn, and a i 1.454 great whore: whose head is k 1.455 Abaddon or Apollyon, the destroyer of others, and himself the son l 1.456 of perdition; and they that follow him, are the children of m 1.457 damnation. This wicked generation warreth n 1.458 against the Lamb Christ, and against the saincts; o 1.459 blasphemeth Gods name & tabernacle and them that dwel in heaven, ••hat is the true Church, whose p 1.460 conversation is heavenly. Yet doo they all this mis∣cheif under shew of Christian religion: & therfore this beast hath horns q 1.461 like the Lamb Christ, this whore is r 1.462 arayed with purple & skarlet, guilded with gold, precious stones and pearles; as if she were the s 1.463 Queen and spowse of Christ: she hath t 1.464 peace offrings & Vovves, as if she were devowt in u 1.465 Gods service: w 1.466 bread and wa∣ters, as ready to refresh the weary sowls. Her doctrines x 1.467 sweet & amiable lye•• spoken in hypocrisie: but yet confirmed with y 1.468 signes and miracles, as if they came from heaven: her power and effica∣cie great, z 1.469 prevayling over the many and the mighty, the Kings & Princes of world, deceiving al nations with her inchantments, and

if it were possible, * 1.470 Gods very elect: her continuance and out∣ward prosperitie † 1.471 long: her end “ 1.472 miserable, consumed with the spirit of the Lords mouth, and abolished with the brightnes of his cōming: and for her destruction the ‘* 1.473 heavens shall rejoyce and sing praises to God.

Now for to find the accomplishment of these things, we are directed by the now Romish religion, to a Catholik or Vniversal church, one part wherof lives on earth, an other under the earth, and a third part in heaven. 1. On earth, is the whole multitude of such as are named Christians through the world, united as a ca∣tholik body under one visible head the Pope, who with his 2 horns n 1.474 like the Lamb, pretendeth to be Christs Vicar in the Kingdom & Preisthood; and is professed of his vassals, o 1.475 to be that tri••d pre∣cious corner stone, that sure foundation in Sion, Jsa. 28.16. and it is p 1.476 declared, defined and pronounced, that it is of necessity to salvation, for al men to be subject unto him. Vnder this Captain are three bands of souldiers, q 1.477 the first clergie men, as Bishops, Preists, Deacons, Sub∣deacons and the rest of those shavelings; the second Lay men, as Kings, Pinces, Nobles,, Citizens, and Commons of al sorts and vocations; the third sort is both of the Clergie and Laitie, caled Monks or Regulars. 2. Vnder the earth, or in Purgatorie fyre, are the sowles (they say) of al such r 1.478 as dye with venial synns, whose payns are to be holpen by prayers, and masses, sayd for them by such as are alive on earth. 3. In heaven, are the sowls of men de∣parted in the popish fayth, and delivered from purgatorie: some of which, the Pope s 1.479 canonizeth for Saincts, whom the people on earth are religiously to honour and pray unto, as their mediators with God. This church on earth, † 1.480 cannot err in things which it commandeth men to beleev o•• doo, whither they be expressed in scripture or not: therfore men must t 1.481 beleev in her, and trust her in al things; for the truth of the faith as touching us, relyeth up∣on her u 1.482 authoritie: and she hath power w 1.483 to make lawes which doo bind and constreyn mens consciences.

These things premissed, I come to our Opposites arguments. Their first reason from 2. Thes. 2.4. is unperfectly alledged, for the

text there sayth of the man of syn, that he dooth sit as God in the Tē∣ple of God: wherupon their conclusion must be, that Antichrist sit∣teth as God in the church of God. And if they can prove that he is the true God, I wil yeild that his temple is the true temple, & his Church the true church. Otherweise, if he be but an Idol and not God: his Temple church and body, wil prove but an Idol like himself, and his blasphemie is worse then theirs y 1.484 which sayd they were Jewes and were not, but did lye, and were the synagogue of Satan.

Secondly, they take it for granted, that by the Temple is meant the church: and so goe on in obscuritie. Wheras the Temple did primarily figure out Christ, Joh. 2.19.21. and in the heavenly Ieru∣salem, (the true church), ther was no other temple seen, but the Lord God almightie and the Lamb (Christ) which are the Temple of it, Rev. 21.22. If in this sense we understand that speech of Paul z 1.485 touching Antichrist, then must we translate the words, (as a 1.486 some ancient Doctors have doon) eis ton Naon, for the Temple, or, as if he himself were the Temple: and so in deed Antichrist taketh upon him the person and office of Christ, (under pretence of his Vicarship,) b 1.487 shewing himself that he is God, proclayming himself to be the c 1.488bryde∣groom of the Church, which is the office of d 1.489 Christ, yea taking a ti∣tle above him, for wheras Christ is caled Pontifex magnus, the e 1.490Great high Preist: the Pope is usually intituled Pontifex maximus the Greatest high-preist; and reason ther is for it, because f 1.491 in the Pope ther is power above all powers, as well of heaven as of earth, as in a publick Council it was spoken of this Beast. Now that these things should be true of the man of syn, otherwise then by lyes spoken in hypocrisie, none of grace, I know, wil affirm.

Secondarily the Temple figured the Church, but first the ca∣tholik or universal church Eph. 2, 21. then every particular church by proportion, 1 Cor. 3, 16, 17. Which of these two, our opposites doo intend, they shew not. If they mean a particular church; it wil not agree with the prophesies of Antichrist, whose Citie or church is so great, as g 1.492peoples, kinreds, tongues & nations, doo dwel in the streets therof. Neyther is that answerable to the Temple in Israel, which was not for one synagogue, but for h 1.493 the whole natiō of the Iewes, and for the i 1.494 Gentiles that came to the faith, through the world. If they mean the catholik or vniversal church, (vvhich indeed Anti∣christ claymeth for his Temple,) then we are to be taught of them,

how that whoorish company that k 1.495 worship the Beast and Dragon; can possibly be the true catholik church and spowse of Christ, o∣therweise then by counterfeysance and lying ostentation, even as the Divil himself is an l 1.496 Angel of light.

And the very word Temple, leadeth vs to vnderstand Anti∣christs church to be but a counterfeyt. For what was the Temple or Tabernacle in Israel? Not the Church or congregation of Gods people properly, for they were the m 1.497 worshipers of God in the Tē∣ple: but it was a sacramental sign of Gods dwelling with his peo∣ple, as it is written, n 1.498 they shal make me a sanctuarie, that J may dwell among them. So Solomon built the Temple that God might o 1.499 dwel therin:: and for the times under the gospel, God promised, p 1.500 J wil set my sanctuary among them for ever, & my Tabernacle shalbe with them, & J wilbe their God, & they shalbe my people: and the fulfilling herof is set down Rev. 21, 3. behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he wil dwel with them, and they shalbe his people. So in Revelat. 11.1. the Tēple is distinguished frō thē that worship therein, which is the people. The Temple then, was an outward sign of Gods presence with his people, and of his inward dwelling in their harts by ‘p 1.501 faith and by his Spirit unto their salvation: so Antichrists Temple is an outward shew of his presence with that seduced people, in whose harts q 1.502 he dwelleth by Popish faith and by his Spirit of error carying them to damnation. But as Antichrist shal not professedly deny the true God or Christ, though in deed and truth r 1.503 he falsly sheweth himself that he is God: so shal he not professedly deny the Temple or church of God, but falsly vaunt his adulterous synagogue to be the same. Gods true temple and tabernacle is in mount Sion, in s 1.504 heaven, wher God sitteth t 1.505 on a throne and dwelleth among his people; wher is the u 1.506 ark of his covenant, and from thence light∣nings, voices, thundrings, earthquake and hayl, come forth against the Antichristians his enemies, and w 1.507 vials of his wrath powred out upon the throne of the beast, and on the men that have his mark. On the contrary, the Beast, which is the kingdom of Antichrist, as∣cendeth from beneath x 1.508 out of the bottomless pit, and y 1.509 blasphe∣meth this heavenly tabernacle, and sitteth z 1.510 in Babylon upon the a 1.511 Dragons throne, and b 1.512 fighteth against the Lamb, and against the Saincts, c 1.513 treading under foot the holy Citie, and d 1.514 casting down the place of Christs sanctuarie. When th'Apostle therfore telleth

us, that Antichrist sitteth as God in the Temple of God, it is to be under∣stood first of their invading and destroying of Gods church and people, as the hethens of old e 1.515 dealt with Ierusalē & dwellers therin; secōdly of their own vayn f 1.516ostentatiō, whiles they will have it caled the Christian catholik church, and the Pope the head of the same.

The next point that Antichrist is to be sought there, and not among the Jewes Turks & Pagans; is a fallacie from an insufficient division; for al out of the true Church are not Jewes, or Turks, or Pagans, ther is a fourth to make up the mease, even popish Antichristians, and a∣mong these is the Man of syn to be found, though with a visar on his face, and a sheepskin on his back. In the true Church he hath somtimes been found raunging as a wolf, but not reigning as a God, which in his own Temple he dooth: wher he is acknowled∣ged g 1.517 Our Lord God the Pope, and ^h Thou art an other God on earth; and i 1.518 To beleev that our Lord God the Pope might not decree as he hath decreed, it were a matter of heresie; and, l 1.519 O thou that takest away the synns of the world, have mercy upon us; with other like intollerable blasphemies.

Thirdly they say, Antichrist takes not away wholly the church of God, and every truth and ordinance of the Lord. I answer, neyther did the Divil take away wholly every truth and ordinance of God from a∣mong the hethens: but they reteyned many rites of Gods worship received from their fathers,k 1.520 as before f 1.521 is noted. Yet in very deed, so much as in them lay, and us stood with the safetie of their deceit∣ful kingdom, the Divil of old, and Antichrist his son of late, have sought wholly to take away the church & truth of God; and to put lyes in the place. But God hath nourished the woman (his church) in the wildernes, from the presence of the Serpent, Rev. 12.14. And for further answer hereof, let us hear what M. Iohnson himself wrote heretofore against M. Iakob, k 1.522 J would know of yow (sayth he) who are so deep a clerk, how Antichrists church and religion should justly be accounted a mysterie of iniquitie, and truly be sayd to speak lyes in hypocrisie, also privily to bring in damnable heresies, and to have a shew of Godlynes, if they did so absolutely and wholly depart from the faith, and not onely from some points therof &c.

Fourthly they allege Rev. 18.4. Goe out of her my people &c. which words (they say) imply the covenant of God continued among them. I an∣swer, these very words are taken from Jer. 51.45. My people, goe out of the midds of her: where by my people, the Church of Babylon is not

meant, but the Israelites, Gods a 1.523 lost sheep scattred there upon the mountains and hills, whom b 1.524 first the King of Ashur had devoured, & lastly Nebuchadnezar King of Babel had broken their bones, having c 1.525bur∣ned Ierusalem and the Temple with fyre, broken down the citie walls, d 1.526 imprisoned their King in Babylon, captived the Princes & people, and caried the e 1.527 vessels of the Lords house into Babylon: so that now Israel was without Temple, without kingdom, without politie or cōmon wealth of their own; (onely the Lord himself was f 1.528 a Sanctuarie or Temple to the faithful there dispersed,) and their holy vessels were caried into the Temple and treasurie g 1.529 of Nebu∣chadnezars God. And these Israelites figuring Gods h 1.530 elect, are caled out of Babylon, which God would utterly i 1.531 destroy & make desolate for ever. And thus from Antichrists church, which is k 1.532 Babylon, Aegypt, & Sodom, are Gods elect caled out: a most evi∣dent proof that she is none of Gods church, (what soever she pre∣tendeth,) any more than the idolatrous hethens, whom she match∣eth in filthines of whordoms, and multitude of abominations. Gods covenant of grace is not therfore with her at al, for she is appointed l 1.533 to damnation: but the elect that obey Gods voice ca∣ling them out of her, them he wil receiv into covenant,m 1.534 he wil be a Father unto them, and they shal be his sonns and daughters; as he hath promised.

Fiftly they add, And so Jsrael is often caled the Lords people, in the time of their Apostasie: 2. King. 9.6. & 13.23. 2. Chron. 30.6.—9. &c· I answer; they prove not the Question: for first the Antichristian church is n 1.535 Babylon, and out of o 1.536 her, that is Babylon, are Gods people caled. Now to prove her Gods church, they flee to Israel: wheras the p 1.537 Gentiles were her true types as q 1.538 elswhere I have ma∣nifested; though al the wickednes & hypocrisie of Apostate Israel, is also found in this Romish Babel.

2. Neyther yet is their argument for Israel good: to say they are caled the Lords people, therfore they are his true church; I deny the consequent. For things are named in scripture sometime as they have been before, though they be not so stil: as r 1.539 Abigail is caled the wife of Nabal, though he were then dead, and she maried to David; s 1.540Solomon was begotten of Vriahs wife, wheras she was then Davids: so Iesus was t 1.541 in the howse of Simon the Leper, so named be∣cause he had been a leper. Thus Israel were caled Gods people, for

that he had been their u 1.542 first husband though in their apostasie they were w 1.543 not his people, nor his wife. Secondly they were so caled, in re∣spect of their profession, that they would be so esteemed and na∣med; though in deed they were x 1.544 without the true God. As y 1.545 ô thou that art named the howse of Jaakob &c. but he that was yesterday my people, is ri∣sen up for an enemye. Thirdly they were caled Gods people in res∣pect of their calling again unto him and his covenant afterward, though for the present they were none of his: as z 1.546 In that day, J wil marrie thee (Israel) unto me for ever, a 1.547 J wil even marry thee unto mee in faith, and thou shalt know the Lord: and † 1.548 J wil have pitty on her that was not pittied, and wil say to them which were not my people, thou art my people, and they shal say, thou art my God. And thus the Gentiles were caled Christs sheep, because they should after be brought into his fold, Joh. 10, 16. & God had much people in Corinth a heathenish citie, Act. 18.10. 1. Cor. 12, 2. and the Iewes to this day are Gods people & belo∣ved, not for their present state which is cursed, but for the promise that they shal hereafter be graffed agayn into Christ. Rom. 11, 11, 20.23, 25, 26. & 9.4. with Jsa. 59, 20, 21. Ezek. 34, 23.—30. Hos. 3, 5. As for this false church and state of Israel (which b 1.549compassed the Lord with lyes and with deceyt,) it also may shew vs how to vnderstand that Temple of God forespoken of, wherin Antichrist should sitt as God. For was there any true Temple any where but in Ierusalem? yet when Israel forgat his maker, he c 1.550 builded Temples. These howsoever they pretended d 1.551 the God that brought them out of Aegypt, yet were in deed built for the worship of e 1.552 Divils, to whom they sacrificed, and f 1.553 not to God. Therfore the Lord by names distinguisheth these two churches, caling Samaria g 1.554 Aholah, that is, Her own Taber∣nacle, & Ierusalem Aholibah, that is, My-tabernacle in her: but if Gods tabernacle had been also in Samaria; the difference had not been such. The Idol temples then which Ieroboam and his successors builded, were none of Gods temples, otherweise then by lying pre∣tenses: much less then was h 1.555 Bels temple in Babylon, Gods temple: and if the figure were not his, neyther can the figured thing be his, I mean this spiritual Babylon, the i 1.556 mother of whores, the k 1.557 habitation of Divils. For as Christ surmounteth in grace and holynes, al types & figures that went before of him: so Antichrist surpasseth in wic∣kednes, al the types and figures of him. Therfore the holy Ghost contenteth not himself with one name, but caleth Antichrists

church, l 1.558 Babylon, and m 1.559 Sodom, & Aegypt, and where our Lord was crucified, meaning hethenish Rome, by whose policie Christ was kyl∣led, when he was delivered to n 1.560 Pilat the Roman deputie, and to the o 1.561 Gentiles (the Roman p 1.562 souldjers) to be mocked scourged & crucified. So that look what idolatrie, fornication, persecution and wickednes hath been read of among those hethen peoples, the same may be proved upon the synagogue of Antichrist, (though mixed with profession of the name of Christ, the more easily to de∣ceive:) as whensoever any wil bring them to be compared, shal soon be manifested.

6. But they proceed, and plead, that this clause partake not in her synns, Rev. 18, 4. sheweth what we are to leav and renounce, namely their synns, and not whatsoever is had or reteyned by them. I answer, first the text sayth Goe out of her: meaning this whore, this Babylon, that is, this Church: and so from the q 1.563 golden cup in her hand, as wel as frō the filthy potion that is in it; & frō the Beasts counterfeyt r 1.564 Lambs horns, as wel as from his Lions mouth and Bears pawes. We may not in the truest Church in the world s 1.565 partake with their synns: yet is not every true Church that synneth, Babylon. Secondly, she be∣ing in this forlorn estate, she is but a lump of syn, t 1.566 a man of syn, a child of perdition: the u 1.567 Beast is not one person, but the whole w 1.568 kingdom: & M. Iohnson himself hath acknowledged more then once, x 1.569 that the man of syn, is the false Church (& religion) of Antichrist, compared to the body of a man, and consisting of all the parts togither. Now to the defiled and unbeleeving, y 1.570 nothing is pure; their z 1.571 sacrifices are abominable, their prayers are turned a 1.572 to syn. We acknowledg therfore no good or holy thing in Antichrists synagogue, as touch∣ing her use of it. Thirdly we renounce not any good thing, be∣cause that harlot dooth chalenge & abuse it: but we practise Gods ordinances as he hath cōmanded, condemning utterly the profa∣nation of them by Antichrist.

7. They further allege, that the Church of Rome was at the first set in the way of God: since which time she is fallen into great apostasie as Jsrael did: in which estate she hath kept sundry truthes and ordinances of God, as Israel also did. Which causeth a twofold consideration of her estate, 1. in respect of the ordinances of God still reteyned among them, 2. and of the mixture of their own abominations. Jn regard of the one to acknowledge the truth and church of God there; in regard of the other to observ their apostasie, and confusion a∣gainst

Antichrist: and for this mixture, to separate from them, and to prac∣tise every ordinance of God, which was and is in that church: leaving onely their corruptions least we fal into Anabaptistrie and other evils. I answer, they doo but roll the first stone, saying the same things; comparing Antichrists church with Israel, wheras the holy Ghost compareth it with the b 1.573 gentiles, even the most vile, the Sodomites, Aegypti∣ans, Babylonians, and hethen Romans, as before I have shewed. In all which nations, there were many truthes & ordināces of God reteyned & abused; which truthes made them no true Church, unless we wil say, al the world was Gods true Church. But I wil fo∣low their particulars. The Church of Rome (they say) was at first set in the way of God: I answer, ther was c 1.574 at Rome such a Church in Pauls time; but the Romish Church now, is a Beast since that time sprung out of d 1.575 the bottomless pit; a Catholik monster, dispersed (as they feign) through earth, heaven, and purgatorie, as before e 1.576 I shewed: such a Church Paul never saw, but by the spirit of prophe∣sie f 1.577 foretold of it. That Church then was g 1.578 Saints, & worshiped God: this Church now is an h 1.579 habitation of Divils, and i 1.580 wor∣shipeth Divils.

Since that time (say they) she is fallen into Apostasie. True, say I, even soon after Pauls time, for then the k 1.581 mysterie of iniqui∣tie did work, and l 1.582 many Antichrists were gone out, whiles the Apostles lived. For which their Apostasie (like Israels) when they would not repent, (as Christ m 1.583 threatned some that were new fal∣len into such synns,) the candlestick (the Church) was removed, the Church of Rome as Paul n 1.584 forewarned, for unbeleef was cut off among others: and for a punishment of their Apostasie, God delivered the East Churches into the hands of Mahomet, and the West Churches into the hands of that false-horned o 1.585 beast Anti∣christ: even as Israel and Iudah of old, for their like synns, were p 1.586 delivered into the hands of the Assyrians and Babylonians. And this Paul prophesied, that ther should be q 1.587 a departing frō the faith, before that Man of syn should be disclosed: and because they recei∣ved not the r 1.588 love of the truth that they might be saved, therfore God would send upon them that Adversarie, with Satans power and strong delusion to beleev lyes, that they might be damned. Thus Mahomet & Antichrist, were Gods 2 plagues, to bring not onely the death of body, but of sowl, upō thē that loved not the truth,

but departed frō it. For when the † 1.589 great mountayne (which is the king¦dom of “ 1.590 Babylon, Antichrists monarchie,) burning with the fyre of ambition and strife, was cast into the sea, that is, among * 1.591 peo∣ples and nations: then the living creatures that were in the third part of the sea so corrupted and bloody, dyed: & “ 1.592 lived not agayn for a thowsand yeres, as did the godly which worshiped not the beast. Although therfore we may truely call the state of Maho∣metisme and Antichristianisme, apostasie: yet we are taught of God, to understand such apostasie as was among the hethens, in Sodom, Aegypt and Babylon; and so Rome is caled, not onely figuratively, (as somtimes the Iewes are caled a 1.593 people of Gomorrah, but b 1.594 spiritually, that is in deed and effectually: for the spirit and life (so to speak) of all their abominations, are in her most powrful and apparant. So their comparison with Israel, falleth too short in mesure: though Israel also when they forsook God and his Church, and builded new c 1.595Temples were not Gods true Temple or Church, as before is proved. Their cōsideratiō in respect of Gods ordinances to acknowledge the church of God there: is a speculatiō of their own, not of God. For the stealing & abusing Gods ordināces & mixing thē with their own inventiōs, maketh not a people Gods people or Ch:, any more thē a true mās mony in a theefs purse, maketh the theef an honest mā. If it were so, then the hethens when they sacrificed d 1.596 swine, were to be condemned▪ but when they sacrificed e 1.597 bullocks and sheep, were to be approved as Gods Church, for they kept f 1.598 Gods ordinance asvvel as Rome with their sacrifice of the Mass. When they wor∣shiped idols, they were to be condemned; but when they worship∣ed g 1.599 the true God in their ignorant manner, they were to be justifi∣ed as his people: so when they kept the feasts h 1.600 of new moons, they were to be praised as Gods Church, for it was an ordinance i 1.601 of his: but when they kept their Bacchanalia, to be disclaimed for he∣retiks. And what wil this come unto at the last; but to justify the Divil as he is a creature of God, and transformed into an k 1.602 Angel of light; but to condemn him as he is a black Divil, and Apostate from his original. Their fear least they should fall into Anabapti∣strie, is before defrayed: but as some mariners to avoid Charybdis have falln into Scylla, so these to shun the shelves of Anabaptistrie, have run their ship upon the rocks of Poperie.

8. Their next double consideration, is about the covenant of God made

with his people. For oftē, the people on their part break the covenāt when the Lord doth not so on his part; but stil counts them his people, calls thē to re∣pentāce, folowes them somtime with judgm^t, somtime with mercie, Lev. 26, 15— 45. Ezek. 16, 59,—62. Jud. 2.1—20. Thus in Jsrael they fel to Jdolatrie & trās∣gressed the covenant on their part, Exo. 32. Jud. 2. & 3. with Ps. 78.56.58. 1. Sam. 7.3, 4. 1 King. 12, 28, 33. & 14.22, 23, 24. with 2. Chron. 12. & 13. & 1. King. 19, 10. Hos. 6.7. & 8, 1. yet the Lord breaks it not on his part, but spareth and destroyeth not, nor presently gives them a byl of divorce, but in his mercy as a loving husband calls them to repentance, sendeth Prophets, calls them stil his people, helps them and casts them not off. Adjoyning also pu∣nishments, both for avenging the quarrel of his covenant, and procuring their conversiō. Exo. 33, & 34. &c. Lev. 26, 14, 15—25—42, 44, 45. Jud. 2, 1, &c. Ps. 78. 1. Kin. 13, & 16. & 18. 2. King. 5, 8, 15, 17. Jer. 51.5. Ezek. 16, 59.60 &c. Hoseas, Amos &c. Jn these two divers respects, Jsrael considered in them∣selves and their idolatrous estate are sayd to be without God, without Preist, without law: to forsake and break the covenant, not to be the Lords wife but an harlot &c. having children of whordoms, and that the Lord is not with Jsrael, or with any of Ephraim, 2. Chrō. 15.3. 1. King. 12, 28.33. & 15, 34. & 16, 13, 26, 31, 33. & 19, 14. Hos. 2, 1,—5. & 5, 3, 4. & 8, 1. & 9, 1. with Psal. 106, 29.39. Ezek. 16. and 23, ch. 2 Chron. 25, 7. But a∣gayn in respect of the Lord and his covenant into which they were received, & which he breaks not on his part, he calls them to repentance, is caled their God, and they the people of the Lord, and their children born to the Lord, and Js∣rael not to have been a widow forsaken of God, but the Lord pittied them, & respected them for his covenant with Abraham, and would not cast them off as yet. And thus Jsrael continued long, respected of the Lord notwithstāding her apostasie, Jud. 2, 1. 1. King. 18.36. 2 King. 9, 6. Hos. 4, 6, 12. & 5.4. & 7.10. & 8, 2. & 9, 1. & 14, 1, 2. Amos 7, 15, with Psal. 89, 30.—34. Eze. 16.20.60. Jer. 51, 5. 2. King. 13, 23. Yet in these times, the Prophets taught the people to plead with their mother, & separate themselves. &c. Hos. 2, 1—5. & 4, 12, 14, 15. Amos 4.4, 5. & 5.4.5. Al these are writtē for our learning, & to be applied to the the churches estate in Apostasie since Christ, Rom. 15, 4. 1. Cor. 10.11. I answer, these things are very obscurely and confusedly by them set down: so that the error is couched in dark∣nes. 1. They shew not how the covenant between God and men stood: 2. there is an aequivocation in this word breaking of the cove∣nant••, which they clear not: thirdly they shuffle togither the estates of Israel when they were one body, & when they were rent in two,

4. so also the churches in Apostasie since Christ, they distinguish not, from the kingdom of Antichrist: but confound Sion (when she synneth,) with Babylon.

1. The covenant between God and men, was alwayes conditio∣nal; by the law, if they a 1.603 did his cōmandements, they should live by them; and if they b 1.604 continued not in all things written in the book of the law to doo them, they were cursed. By the gospel, c 1.605 he that beleeveth in the son [of God] hath everlasting life, and he that obeyeth not the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God, abideth on him. And all the figurative covenants that Israel had, were also conditional, d 1.606 blessings pro∣mised to the obedient, and curses to the transgressors.

2. The breaking of the covenant on mans part, is alwayes e 1.607 by syn: in which sense it cannot be sayd that God ever breaketh covenant at any time. But in an other sense by punishing, and putting from him the rebellious people, in just judgment; we may say God f 1.608 break∣eth or disannulleth the covenant. Whensoever a people by syn forsa∣keth God, and refuseth his word caling them to repentance: they cannot have themselves, neyther can other men have concerning them any assurance of their salvation, or that they abide in the co∣venant of his grace. For whosoever abideth in him (as sayth g 1.609 the scripture) he synneth not: whosoever synneth, hath not seen him, neyther known him. Be it h 1.610 man or woman, or familie or tribe, which turn their hart from the Lord, to serve other Gods, though they bless themselves in their harts, saying we shal have peace &c. the Lord wil not be merciful unto them. As for Gods pacience, who presently pu∣nisheth not, but somtime forbeareth long; and inviteth them to repentance: this dooth not assure any that they are under his co∣venant of grace, unless by repentance and faith they turn unto the Lord. The long suffring of God i 1.611 abode in the dayes of Noah, 120. yeres, whiles he preached to the old world which perished in the flood: so his bountifulnes to many other peoples should have led them to repentance, k 1.612 when they after their hardnes and impe∣nitent harts, heaped unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath. And the judgments upon Gods professant people, come often times more speedily, then upon the open infidels. Let us look upon the typical estate of Israel, our l 1.613 ensamples: It was a m 1.614 covenant between God and them, that he would give them the land of Canaan, a figure n 1.615 of the heavenly inheritance: and he

led them through the wildernes, to the borders of the coun∣trye, and sayd, o 1.616 Loe the land is before yow, goe up and pos∣sess it: but they p 1.617 were afrayd and would not goe up, through their unbeleef. Then the Lord presently q 1.618 was wroth and swore, that not one of those transgressers should see that good land; yea though they after were sory, r 1.619 and offred themselves to goe up, yet the Lord s 1.620 forbad them, slew some of them by the sword, and t 1.621 turned al the rest back to wander and perish in the wildernes▪ Agayn, it was a condition of the u 1.622 covenant on Gods part, that he would cast out the Amorites, Canaanites &c. from before the Israe∣lites; and on their parts, w 1.623 that they should make no compact with the inhabitants of the land &c. But when they brake with him, and rooted not out the people, but agreed with them x 1.624 for tribute; the Lord also presently brake with them, saying, y 1.625 J sayd J wil never break my covenant with yow &c. but ye have not obeyed my voice, wherfore J say also, J wil not cast them out before you; and agayn because z 1.626 this people hath transgressed my covenant, therfore wil I no more cast out before them any of the nations; and so they were left as a 1.627 a whip on their sides, and thornes in their eyes.

The like may be seen by comparing al other particulars, and those threatings in Levit. 26.15.16. &c. with their histories in the books of the Judges and Kings of Israel: according to that saying of God to Moses, b 1.628 they wil forsake me &c. and J wil forsake them. And as for that which is cited from Levit. 26.45. it was a promise of the Gospel, upon their unfeighned c 1.629 repentance; and perteyneth to the Iewes also at this day, as Paul sheweth us Rom. 11. for this rule is general, d 1.630 he that confesseth and forsaketh his synns, shal have mercie. Although therfore God useth sometime more forbearance of evil men than at other time, and often giveth e 1.631 space to repent: yet if they repent not, they shal assuredly f 1.632 perish, and their boasting of the covenant shal g 1.633 not save them.

3. Touching their application of things to Israel, not putting difference between their state when it was one, and when it was rent asunder: therin also they fayl. Whiles Israel were one, they continued Gods Church: for though they often synned, yet by his word & afflictions he soon brought them to repentance, as is no∣ted, Judg. 2.4, 5. and 3.8, 9.15. and 4.1.2, 3. &c. But when after ma∣ny other synns, ten tribes fel from the Lord, and rent themselves

from the Kingdome of David, and Preisthood of Levi, both which were sacramental types a 1.634 of Christ and his Church; when they left the other testimonies of Gods presence, the Temple and Altar at Sion, where God had sayd he would b 1.635 dwel for ever; and builded them new c 1.636 Temples and Altars to syn, forgetting their maker; when they set up Calves and d 1.637 Divils to worship God by; then presently e 1.638 God sent his Prophet to them with a denunciation of judgment, which being done, he was to avoid them as Hethens & Publicans; f 1.639 not eating or drinking in the city: which because he did (though drawn in by the lye of another Prophet,) the Lord g 1.640 slew him with a Lion. And all that feared God, h 1.641 both Preists & people, left the country and went to Iudah: and the rest wer stil i 1.642 caled upon by the Prophets to forsake them, as not being Gods k 1.643 wife, that is, his Church: and their estate shewed to be l 1.644 with∣out the true God, and without Preist, and without law: and they were unto God m 1.645 as the Aethiopians. Now wheras our Opposites allege, God did not presently cast them off; it is true, in respect of caling them to repentance, and of their dwelling in the land, or, as the scripture saith, n 1.646 of putting out the name of Jsrael from under heaven: for his covenant was to punish them o 1.647 by degrees, & at last if they repented not, to scatter them among the Hethens, til their p 1.648 un∣circumcised harts should be humbled, and they rewed their former syn; and then would he q 1.649 remember his first covenant, & so re∣ceiv them agayn to grace in Christ. And as for not casting them presently out of the land, the Lord dealt with them, as he had be∣fore dealt with the Hethen Canaanits which were spared therin for a time, because their wickednes was not yet full, Gen. 15.16. If this pa∣tience towards them, wil not prove them a true Church; no more wil Gods like patience towards apostate Israel. And how they in their impenitent estate, r 1.650 hardning their necks dayly more & more, could be sayd to be the true Church of God, (though they cō∣passed s 1.651 him with lyes,) and in the covenant of his grace unto sal∣vation; I leave for them to judge that are wise in hart. As for these mens double respects, they are not al of them syncere. They would have it said in respect of the Israelites, (and not of the Lord) that they were without God, without Preist, without law, none of his wife, ha∣ving children of whordoms, and the Lord is not with Jsrael &c. & agayn in respect of the Lord (and not of themselves) that he is caled their

God, and they his people, and their children borne to him, and Israel not to have been a widow forsaken &c. I answer, whatsoever was syn, was wholly their own, and whatsoever was grace, was wholly Gods: & this is true in the best Churches in the world. But whatsoever was a reproof and punishment for their syn, respected both Gods jus∣tice, and their demerit: and whatsoever acceptation of grace was in them, respected both Gods mercy in Christ, and their a 1.652 faith. If therfore they were in any sence a true Church at that time actually, it must needs be by mutual referēce to the covenāt on both parts, God offring, they b 1.653 taking his grace offred; through his holy Spirit working in them: otherwise it is a mere fiction in religion, to make difference where none is. Now let them shew that they ac∣cepted the grace of God, caling them to repentance: we shew the contrary by the Lords own testimonie, who for their unbeleef and stubborn disobedience c 1.654 did put them out of his sight in wrath. And if men accept not the grace of God: his caling upon them to repent, makes them no more his Church, then the Hethens d 1.655 unto whom he doth the like.

Agayn, it is not sound to say that in respect of themselves onely, it was spoken by the Prophet e 1.656 the Lord is not with Israel, with any of the children of Aephraim. For he there dissuadeth Amaziah from ha∣ving the army of Israel to help him: his reason is, the Lord is not with Jsrael: this most directly respecteth the Lord and his f 1.657 withdraw∣ing of his presence from that people. Even as Moses sayd, g 1.658 Got not up [to warr] for the Lord is not among you: did not the event shew (when they h 1.659 fled before their enemies) that is was meant in res∣pect of Gods presence and help now withdrawn from them? Also when it is sayd in other scriptures i 1.660 the Lord was with the Iudge: and k 1.661 the Lord is with me, I wil not feare: and l 1.662 I am with yow al dayes, & ma∣ny the like: who ever would dreame that these things could be spoken in respect of the men onely, and not of God and Christ? Fi¦nally the Prophets speech to the Iewes, m 1.663 the Lord is with yow, while yow be with him, but if yee forsake him, he wil forsake yow, doth evince manifestly, that it is an evil glosse, when the text sayth the Lord is not with Israel, to turn it by respects, as if nothing were meant but Is∣rael is not with the Lord. So in the other speech n 1.664 Israel hath been with∣out the true God; the words folowing o 1.665 but had he turned to the Lord God of Israel; and sought him, he would have been found of them; these ma∣nifest,

that it was in respect of Gods forsaking them also, and not onely of their forsaking him.

No better (if it be not worse) is their citing of Hos. 2.2. she is not my wife, that this respected Israel in themselves: be it so, but what foloweth? † 1.666 neyther am J her husband: and if the former branch res∣pected Israel, then this respecteth the Lord, especially seing he tes∣tified by Ieremie, * 1.667 J cast her away, and gave her a byll of divorcement: unless they wil say this also was not spoken in respect of the Lord. They doo not wel therfore to cite one branch of the text, and concele an other, deceiving the reader. How and in what sense God cal∣led them his people, I have shevved “ 1.668 before: their former state, their present pretense to be the Lords, and the future mercie that they should and yet shal receiv, might wel and did occasion such spee∣ches: but in deed and truth it was as God sayd to them † 1.669 you are not my people, therfore wil not J be yours. And as for God remembring his covenant, it is true even to this day, for they are * 1.670 beloved for their fathers sakes, and shal agayn have the benefit of their first “ 1.671 cove∣nant, and so may stil becaled Gods people, as the Prophets foretelling their return, doo ‘† 1.672 intitle them: yet I hope our opposites wil not hereupon conclude, that the Iewes now (whiles they continue un∣repentant) are Gods true visible church. That of Jsrael and Judah being no widow, Jer. 51.5. is a prophesie of their return out of Baby∣lon, and restoring of their common wealth, as the whole argument there manifesteth. They should repent and seek the Lord ‘* 1.673 with tears, and renew the covenant on their part, and God ‘؛ 1.674 vvould forgive them al their synns. This therfore is not spoken in respect of God onely, but of them also turning by repentance to the Lord in their affliction, and the Lord turning to them; as the first per∣formance of this prophesie shevveth, Nehem. 9.1.2.—32.—38. Moreover, it proveth not that Israel vvas alvvayes before, Gods vvife or Church; for it is playn to the contrary, Hos. 2.2. and she vvas divorced, Ier. 3, 8. & dead in syn, Hos. 13.1. but now vvas to be fulfilled in such as returned, that vvhich vvas prophesied, on Israels part, † 1.675 J wil goe and return to my first husband; and on Gods part, * 1.676 J wil marry the unto me in faith.

Their applying of these things to our times, is not in all points aright. For though in this, Antichrists synagogue and Israels doo agree, that neyther be Gods true Church: yet the perfect type of

Rome, as God describeth it, is * 1.677 Babylon: and vve should not be vviser then God. And if they cannot prove Babylon then to be Gods church, which was not more deep in syn thē now Antichrist is, and which citie had † 1.678 promise and * 1.679 performance of mercie in Christ at the end: they shal never prove this synagogue of Satan to be Gods true Church, which hath no promise of recovery or mer∣cie, but ‘† 1.680 prophesies and threatnings of assured destruction.

They proceed further to a double regard of apostate Churches, in cō∣parison with other peoples; as Jsrael compared with the Philistims &c, is cal∣ed and counted Gods people, having the onely true God for their God: 2 King. 5, 8.15.17. & 9, 6. but being compared with Judah, is an harlot and not Gods wife. Hos. 2.2.5. & 4.15. &c. So the church of Rome in apostasie, com∣pared with Iewes, Turks & Pagans, ought to be counted Christians, and the Temple of God, the Church of God brought to the faith of Christ, 2 Thes. 2.4. with Ezek. 43, 7, 8. Zach. 6, 12, 13. Eph. 2, 11. — 13, 19, 21. 2. Cor. 6, 16. Rev. 11.19. but agayn cōmpared with the ancient church of Rome, & such as now are faithful churches, she is to be esteemed the great whore, beleeving & speaking lyes in hypocrisie &c, Rev. 17.1.5. 1. Tim. 4, 1, 2, 3. 2 Thes. 2, 3, 10, 12. And thus in a double consideration, it may be sayd of Rome in one respect, ther is a true Church there, and in an other respect ther is a false church there.

I answer; first to the double regard of Israel; if they mean that one∣ly in respect of Iudah, and not also of God, Israel was caled none of Gods wife; it is untrue, and before by me disproved. If they mean, that not onely in respect of God, but of Iudah also, Israel was an harlot, and not Gods wife, it is true, and maketh so much the more against their estate, but nothing at al, (no not in shew) for it. And how Iudah respected Israel, (besides al former testimonies of the Prophets alleged,) their continual warrs both with word and sword do manifest, as when after a’ 1.681 reproof of their faling from God, they kylled b 1.682 five hundred thousand chosen men of Israel at one battel: besides their continual combates after, excepting some few Kings which made amitie with them, for which they were reproved: as the Prophet sayd to K. Iehoshaphat for joyning with the King of Israel against the Aramites, c 1.683 wouldest thou help the wicked, and love thē that hate the Lord? therfore for this thing, wrath from the Lord is upon thee. But had the Israelites been their brethren in the faith, and cove∣nant of Christ, Iudah had d 1.684 synned greatly in so destroying them.

And how the Iewes afterward also esteemed of their faith and god∣lynes, their Rabbines testimonies in the Talmud sheweth, where they say of the ten tribes, a 1.685 Aein lahem chelek leolam haba: that is, they have no part in the world to come, in life eternal; and that the Lord did put them from upon their land in this world, and wil send them into an o∣ther land in the world to come. Did they now (may we think) esteem them within the holy covenant, and to have true circumcision, b 1.686 the seal of the righteousness which is by faith? As for comparison with the Philistims and other hethens, it is true they were caled the people of the Lord; because they never renounced their God in name and professedly: but pretended the contrary. Yet seeing they did but compass the Lord with † 1.687 lyes and deceyt: this their vayn profession did nought avayl them, with God or his Saincts. And so at this day, the Iewes professing the God of Israel, and praying to him, & reading his lavv and prophets dayly in their synagogues, may be caled Gods people in cōparison of pagans vvhich knovv not God or his scriptures at al: but vvorship the Sun and Moon, and some of them the Divil, by open profession. Yet none I think vvil say, that the Ievves novv being vv^thout Christ, are actually in the cove∣nant of grace. Agayn, the Turks that profess a 1.688 One immutable, living, true, most wise & high God; and doo acknovvledge Christ b 1.689 to be sent of God with his gospel, and call him c 1.690 Ruchella, that is the Breath (or Spi∣rit) of God: these men in comparison of Julian the Apostata, and o∣ther like vvretches, and Atheists, may be caled the people of God, and Christians: though in deed, they be farr from being eyther.

Secondly for their double regard of the Church of Rome, I say as before of Israel, that in comparison vvith Turks and paynims, they may be caled Christians, but are in deed false Christians, such as in name and shevv pretend to be Christs; but are Antichrists & vvor∣ship e 1.691 the Dragon, and the Beast, and him that f 1.692 fitteth as God in the Temple of God; so to them the scripture may be applied, g 1.693 they say they are h 1.694 Christians and are not, but doo lye, and are the synagogue of Satan: and if this vvill help them, let them make the most of it. It is sufficient for the matter in hand, if in respect of Christ and his covenant, and in comparison vvith Christs true Churches, that sy∣nagogue be condemned, as the i 1.695 great whore, the beast that k 1.696 came up from, and shal again goe down into the bottomless pit. vertheless (but that comparisons are odious) it might easily be pro∣ved,

that though Antichrists Church pretend to be Christs, & so in name is better than Turks and Pagans: yet in deed, those mis∣creants are in some things to be justified, in comparison of them. For Iewes and Turks, are not so gross as to worship g 1.697 the Queen of heaven, and Images of Wood and of stone, as h 1.698 doo the Antichri∣stians.

The Iewes are not so vayn as to pray to Abraham and the Pro∣phets, though they be in deed saynts in heaven: wheras the popish Church prayeth dayly a 1.699 to S. Nicolas, S. Martin, S. Sylvester. S. Benedict, S. Dommik, S. Antonie, and all other their own canonized and deified Saincts, of whom they know not but many may be Di∣vils in hel. And Bp. Bale observeth, that b 1.700 they have doon as their old predecessors the idolatrous preists did by the ancient Romās, they have set us up a sort of lecherous Gods to be worshiped in our temples, to be our advocats, and to help us in our needs. Yea the Hethens would marvel (as Tullie c 1.701 tel∣leth us) that any should be so mad, as to beleeve that that thing which he eateth is his God: yet Antichristians beleev that they eat their God and maker, when they eat their blasphemous Sacrament of the al∣tar, which before they eat, they d 1.702 worship with divine honour. At Canterburie e 1.703 were kept the clowts that Thomas Becket did occupy to wipe of his sweat and to blow his nose on: which were kissed as holy relicks, and thought to be wholsome for sick folks. Was ther ever, may we think, more foolish idolatry, among any paynims? Wherfore they are in many respects worse than the very Hethens: and it is true which a lear∣ned man f 1.704 hath sayd, that their Church is like their Transubstantiatiō, accidents without the true and proper subject.

Their allegation of 2 Thes. 2.4. that the Man of syn should sit as God in the Temple of God, is before answered; and is but the misun∣derstanding of a phrase, that if they would contend, they might as wel prove, the Divil which appeared to the Witch of Endor, was Samuel; because the scripture phrase sayth that Samuel sayd to Saul &c. 1 Sam. 28 14.15 &c. Neyther is Ezek. 43.7.8. fitly joyned with 2 Thes. 2. they should set the type from Bels Temple in Baby∣lon, where g 1.705 the vessels of Gods true Temple were holden captive: or from the Samaritans Temple h 1.706 builded by Sanballat on moūt Garizim, whither the Apostate and wicked Iewes used to flee. And wheras they cite Zach. 6-12.13. it is direct against them, for it sheweth not that the Branch (Christ) should build the Temple of the

Lord, and then leav it for the man of syn to be worshiped there as God; but that Christ himself should also a 1.707 cary the glorie, and sit and rule upon his throne, and be a Preist upon it; and this we see accomplished in the Christian Church warring against the Beast: for b 1.708 out of the true temple, and from Gods throne there, doe come plagues upon the Beasts throne, and upon al his worshipers; and God continew∣eth stil in c 1.709 his temple, which the beast d 1.710 blasphemeth. And of this temple speaketh Paul in Eph. 2, 11. where the true God dwelleth by his spirit, verse 12. So 2 Cor. 6, 16. confirmeth this, saying; what a∣greement hath the temple of God with idols? but these would make agre∣ment, which wil have the e 1.711 Adversarie f 1.712 the idol shepheard, there to sit, where also he is worshipped as God. And in the words next be∣fore, what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6, 15. by Belial, we may understand Satan or his eldest son Antichrist, the Hebrue word be∣ing taking from 2. Sam. 23.6. where Belial, the company of wicked ones is opposed to Davids howse, the father and type of Christ: & Sibylla prophesying of Antichrist g 1.713 calleth him Belial, (in the Greek termination Belias). Now that which Paul dooth most vehemently deny, these would affirm, in making such concord, that where Be∣lial sitteth as God, and is so worshipped; there Christ also sitteth & blesseth him and his worshipers, with the one true baptisme, seal∣ing up unto them the forgivenes of synns, and life eternal. For so we have heard it pleaded, that the baptisme which the Antichristi∣ans have and use in Rome, is the true, the one baptisme spoken of Eph. 4, 5. How fitly may we put Mr Iohnson here, in mind of his h 1.714 own words cited from a Commenter on Dan. 11.34.35. of the wily whelps that seek how to agree Belial with Christ, Jdols and the true worship in spirit; thrusting the Pope and Christ both togither into one poke.

Wheras they end their divers respects, with a true church there, and a false Church there: they conclude not the question, but closely turn it away. They should prove her, that is the whore, to be Christs true spowse and Church; if so they could. For, there ther may be a true Church, though she be none of it: even as God had * 1.715 his people in Babylon, and there he was a * 1.716 Sanctuarie or Temple unto them: but the Babylonians were not the men: neyther was Bels temple, the Lords. But it may be they mean her self, by there: for pre∣sently they prove it “ 1.717 as Paul sayd of one and the same womā, she is dead & alive in divers respects, 1. Tim. 5, 6. A fit cōparison: for Paul meaneth that

she was alive in this natural life, but dead as touching spiritual life in God: and this is very true in Antichrists synagogue: for a 1.718 she li∣veth in pleasure, and sayth in hart, J sit being a Queen &c. but as touch∣ing life with God, she is b 1.719 dead, and appointed to c 1.720 damnation. We acknowledge therfore with them, that things are often in the scriptures spoken in divers respects, without observing wherof, men shal err infinitely: but it is evil for men to make other respects then God maketh; the scriptures may easily be misapplied; as a litle af∣ter, they bring us the respect of Abraham unrighteous in himselfe, but righteous by faith, Rom. 4.3.5. I hope they wil not apply this to that son of perdition, in 2 Thes. 2. for that were a most wicked com∣parisō. Yet thus they have shuffled togither many scriptures (wher∣by the simple may be deceived,) for to shew things diversly spokē, which none doubteth off: but how soundly they have proved An∣tichrists Church to be Christs, let the judicious Reader give setēce. And let al that feare God mind, whither such doctrines wil not beat the path for al licenciousnes. For although the scripture sayth, d 1.721 he that committeth syn is of the Divil: and, we know that whosoever is borne of God synneth not; but he that is begotten of God, keepeth him self, and that wicked one toucheth him not: notwithstāding, men may be as pro∣phane as Esau, as filthy in life as Sodom, as idolatrous and synful as the Aegyptians and Babylonians, and yet if they wil but cal thē∣selves Christians, and be outwardly baptised, they may be blamed in words, and separated from by men: but yet justified as Gods true Church, they and their seed in his covenant of grace, & sea∣led with baptisme, which is to remission of synns: and what need they care for more? Who wil feare his estate, or amend his life, for the doctrine of such men, as pul down with the left hand, & build up with the right? Is not this rather to e 1.722 strengthen the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wickednes, by promising him life? Moreover this acknowledging al that profess Christ and are bapti∣sed, to be true Churches having the true baptisme of God: wil ne∣cessarily draw unto a general communion with al such societies, wher men think actually no evil is committed, as may fal out oftē in the sermons of Friers, Iesuits, and other false Prophets; for with true visible Churches and members of Christ, who may not com∣municate, so it be not in euil? And thus Christians may come to that vanity & cōfusiō vvhich was among the Hethens, of whom an

ancient Doctor a 1.723 noteth, that though they had infinite and con∣trary opinions about the Gods and their religion: yet al of them kept communion togither in their Temples and sacrifices.

Wheras Mr. Ioh. b 1.724 referreth us to his first writings, in answer to M. Iacob, pag. 7. & 13. and 47. as having then written somwhat tending this way, which now he pleads for: the Reader may see (by comparing them) how farr they differ. There, touching England, c 1.725 he distinguisheth between their Church estate, in respect wherof he is perswaded they cannot be judged true Christians, and the personal estate of some considered apart from their Church constitution, that they may wel be thought in regard of Gods election to be heyrs of salva∣tion, and in that respect true Christians: so in pag. 13. & 47. touching the Church of Rome, and some Gods elect in it. Although in pag. 146 he is perswaded, whosoever lives & dyes a Papist and member of that Church of Antichrist, in the knowledge, profession, and maintenance of that religion in the parts therof, can not of us be esteemed to live and dye in the e∣state of salvation. Now what is that to his presēt plea, for the Church & baptisme of Rome, but rather the contrary. And for us, we ne∣ver disputed with any touching Gods elect, which we leave unto himself who onely d 1.726 knovveth those that are his. We deny not but ther may be of the elect in al false Churches: even as Satan hath his reprobates in the true Churches. I hold it presumption for any to limit God, by how smal means, or mesure of faith and knovv∣ledge he vvil save a man. Who dares deny but God had many elect among the Hethens, after he had separated Israel from them? Yea God expresly sayd, vven he made Israel his peculiar people, that yet e 1.727 al the earth was his, vvhich are the vvords of the covenant f 1.728 gene∣rally. Wherfore vve leave Gods secret counsels to himself as g 1.729 he vvilleth us; and doe consider onely the visible state of Churches, by the rules of Gods Lavv and promises. Finally in that very book vvhich he mentioneth, hovv sharply h 1.730 doth M. Iohns. inveigh a∣gainst his opposers, and against M. Hooker (that pleaded for the Church of Rome because of some truthes there reteyned;) & saith, that what by the Prelats and their Proctours on the one hand, and the Pha∣ris••ical dawbing reformists on the other, all may justly fear, least the end of that Church wilbe to look back not onely in part, but even wholly to the Ro∣mish Egipt and Sodom, and to wollow agayn in the same myre, from which they would seem al this time to have been washed. When the Prelats and

Reformists shal see what the same man now writeth himself, for that Romish Egypt: what wil they say, but that even he also is come to dawb with them for company; and fear a further fall.

Of their judgment of the Church of Rome: translated out of M. Iunius.

To countenance their cause the more, they set it out with the name and judgment of a learned man, now deceassed. Against whō themselves wrote a 1.731 heretofore; when they would have been loath to stand to his judgment. But what wil not men doo, for help in time of need? The thing borrowed from him is in deed his own judgment, rather then proof of argument: I shal therfore the more breifly touch it, yet not medling with the author (who I hope is at rest in the Lord) but with these his translators.

b 1.732The Church of Rome (wherof they treat) is properly (they say) the company which is at Rome, as Paul wrote Rom. 1. abusively, it is al the Churches on earth cleaving to it and the doctrine & constitution therof. They treat of the first, but would have men by proportion understand the same of the later. I answer; A Church ther was at Rome in Pauls time, c 1.733 be∣loved of God, caled Saints, whose faith was published through the whole world. A Church (or peece rather of a Church) ther is at Rome now, d 1.734 loathed of God, caled e 1.735 Divils: whose whordoms & abominations are famous through al the earth. In deed and truth ther is a great Citie spiritually caled Sodom, & Aegypt and Babylon, Rev. 11.8. & 16.19. dispersed over the world under the name of a Christian Catholik Church, whose cheif place & throne is f 1.736 Rome. As for the congregation of Saints that was there in Pauls time, it is gone long since, and the g 1.737 Man of syn with his worshipers, come in the place. Between these two, ther is no just proportion: for what concord hath Christ with Belial? 2 Cor. 6.15.

The Church of Rome considered as a subiect, (they say) hath 2. parts, Pastours and the flock of Christ, for which Church th'Apostle of old gave thanks to God, Rom. 1, 8. Neyther doo we deny this subiect to be at Rome evē at this day, because we trust ther is God caling, persons caled, & the caling it self yet in her, which togither in one, giveth being to a Church. I answer, First, I deny that God is there caling as in his Church, but the man of syn sitts there as God, calling all to worship him, and his calling

is by the working of Satan, and in al deceivablenes of unrighteousnes among them that perish: and the persons caled, are deluded to beleev lyes. 2 Thes. 2.9, 10, 11. Al these togither, give being to Antichrists church, but not to Christs. And we are sure God caleth out of her, such as shal be saved, Rev. 18, 4. Their p 1.738 starr (or Bishop) is long since fallen from heaven: and in sted of Peters keyes, he received the key of the bottomless pit, which he opened, and brought up a smoke of heresies, and dark∣ned all truth and means therof, and sent abroad his clergie the Lo∣custs to sting and poyson mens souls: by calling them from God, to † 1.739worship Divils: And these things Mr Iunius himself, hath q 1.740 appli∣ed to the popish hierarchie.

Touching the papacie, (say they) or papal hierarchie caled ecclesiastical, we say not that it is the church properly so caled, but an accident growing to the church, and which covertly worketh against the life and health of the church. For the papacie is an order, humane and naught; the church is an assembly di∣vine, &c. And after they say, r 1.741 The papacie is in the church as the order of apostasie in the howse of God 2 Thes. 2. the man of syn sitteth in the temple of God, with his whole order or rank of Apostates: and the Temple of God con∣sisteth not in that order and number of Apostates, which is a thing most strange and furthest off. And again, the papacie is a poyson in the Church, which must needs be vomitted out if it wilbe preserved, or ells the Church wil be extinguished by it, if it suffer that poyson to prevayl and possess all the veyns of the body. I answer, true it is, and I agree with them, that the rank of Apostates, is farr from being Gods temple: wherupon I assume, the whole popish church, preists and people are a rank of Apostats; because they worship s 1.742 the Beast, who sheweth himself there for God, where the Pope is acknowledged to be t 1.743 the Lion of the tribe of Iudah, the root of David, the Saviour and deliverer: they worship Di∣vils and Idols of silver and gold, Rev. 9.20. and their beleef is in lyes 2 Thes. 2.11, 12. therfore the whole popish Church being a ranck of Apostates, is a Temple of Antichrist, but not of Christ. Secondly, (to take that which they grant,) the papal Hierarchie eccle∣siastical, if it be no part of the body of the Church, but an accident, a poyson, a gangrene, an vlcer eating the body: what shal we think of al the actions of that ecclesiastical hierarchie, their ministration of sacraments, their making of ministers, and the whole Church ad∣ministration, by that rank of Apostates, they cannot possibly be the actions of the body, of the Church, neyther of Christ. Can a scab or

gangrene perform any action of a natural body or member? And now what is become of their true baptisme, and ordination of Minis∣ters before pleaded for? these wil be but as the operation of the poi∣son or fretting of the gangrene, for they that did them, being the po∣pish ecclesiastical hierarchie, were no parts of the Church, but accidents, as the gangrene or pocks upon the whores body, which consume life and grace, but give none at al. Thirdly, seing the popish eccle∣siastical hierarchie, (which a 1.744 consisteth of Bishops, Preists & Mi∣nisters,) are the poison and botches in the body of the Church, and no parts of the same: how dooth God cal in that Church, as before they reasoned? For his ministerie is not among them; as for his word, the people have it not so much as to read; and the service of their Gods, is in a tongue that they understand not: what now is the meanes of their caling? Fourthly, compare this with their for∣mer plea for the Eldership and Ministerie, whē they could b 1.745 not find the Church to be caled the body of Christ, howse, city, or Kingdom, unless it had officers &c. Now for Rome they wil have it the body of Christ, howse & Temple of God, ministring true baptisme, &c. and yet the ecclesiastical hierarchie are no parts or members, but scabs on the body. But the truth is, these Aegyptian boyles, the hierarchie, ar the chiefest parts of the body of that Antichrist: which in some respect may be likened to the Image that Nebuchadnezar saw, Dan. 2.31. &c. The Pope with his triple crown, who is proclaymed for a c 1.746 Vice-God, the inuincible Monarch of the Christian common wealth, and vehement conserver d 1.747 of the popish omnipotencie: he is the ••ead of Gold. The Cardinals and prelats are next him as breast & arms of silver; the other belly••God Clergie, is the strong brazen paunch, and the Lay people, are as the legs and feet of yron and clay, which cary and bear up the bulk: and the e 1.748 unclean Spirit of Satan gi∣veth life and effectual operation to this Beast. For to be a member of this their body and Church, the papists themselves f 1.749 profess that ther is not any inward vertue required: so then ther is no need of the spirit of God, to joyn these limms of the Beast togither.

But they proceed and say, that g 1.750 On Gods behalf it is altogither a Church, whersoever ther is found a company caled of God with his caling by the spirit and the holy scripture, and the ministery of persons ordeyned for ho∣ly things and divine actions. And a little after, h 1.751 After this maner doo we esteem of the Church in which the papacy is, God caleth her with his ca∣ling

by his spirit and word, and publik record of that holy mariage, the scrip∣ture, & the ministerie and things & holy actions, which before we have breif∣ly reckned up. I answer; if mens eyes did not dazel with looking on * 1.752the bewtie of the harlot, I marvel how they could so esteem of that Church, which hath for her hierarchie (as even now they confessed) a rank of Apostates, no members but ulcers of the body. And are they now with another breath, become an holy ministerie of God? Most strange it is that men should publish their own esteemings, without any word of God to warrant them. But let us bring them to the trial. They say, God caleth her by his spirit and word: but Paul sayth, God shal send them strong delusion that they should beleev lyes, 2 Thes. 2.11. and this we see verifyed, by the manifold heresies, idolatries, blas∣phemies wherewith the whole body of that Church is poysoned. They say God caleth her with his spirit: the Apostle sayth, strong is the Lord God which will condemn her, Rev. 18, 8. and with the spirit of his mouth, he wil consume that lawless one, 2. Thes. 2, 8. And wheras they cal the scripture, the publik record of that holy mariage be∣tween God & her: the scripture shewes no such mariage, but dooth defye her as an a 1.753 harlot: where is the record that Christ was ever maried to the b 1.754 Beast that came up from the bottomless pit? If her having the book of holy scripture in an unknown tongue, wicked∣ly abused to mainteyn her whordoms and abominations, & sub∣jected to the interpretation of her c 1.755 Lord God the Pope, be a record of that holy mariage; the Iewes which have Moses and the Pro∣phets red and expounded in their mother tongue, have better re∣cords; and so they, and all heretical assemblies in the world, among whom the Bible is, must be judged Gods true Churches. Let us add hereunto the testimonie of men, and touching our own coun∣ty. D. Fulk answereth the Papists thus, † 1.756you taught the people nothing ells but to pronounce and that ful ylfavouredly like popingeyes, certain Latin words which they understood no more then stocks or stones. So that the peo∣ple had no instruction from you, no not of the name of God in many places, but that they received by vncertayn talk of their parents, as it were from hand to hand. For how many thowsand parishes are here in England, that within e 1.757 these 60. yeres would declare that they never heard sermon in their life. As for that they heard of their service, they learned as much of it, as of the ringing of their bells, which was a sound without understanding. These things be∣ing so, what caling had the poor seduced people more then among

the heathens.

* 1.758Wee wil make the matter playn (say they) by a similitude from Ier. 3. A wife being filthy with adulteries, if her husband wil pardon her, and consent to receiv her, she abideth stil his wife &c. So a church overflowing with adulteries &c. I answer, God (if it were granted that he is the husband of this whore,) hath promised her no pardon, but delivered her to Satan, to be seduced, deluded, damned 2 Thes. 2.9, 11, 12. Second∣ly I deny that this harlot was ever Christs spouse, otherweise then al the world was, by our first parents Adam and Noah. For this is not she unto whom Paul wrote Rom. 1. but an other of whom he prophesied, 2 Thes. 2. She succeedeth in the same place, as the night succeedeth the day. The Church in Pauls time, came from heaven, Rev. 21.2. and is long since gone to God: this came up from the bottomless pit; Rev. 17, 8. and thither she must return. She is of an other religion, the daughter of a strange God. But they al∣ledge, touching the election (as is sayd of the Jewes, Rom. 11.28.) she is beloved for her fathers sakes. I answer, first then this proveth rather the Iewes at this day a church; for stil they are loved for their fathers sakes: and shalbe called againe, as th'Apostle there sheweth. Secondly, if the Iewes are beloved for their good fathers sakes: then Rome may wel be hated for her evil fathers sakes. For who were her fathers, but the Gentiles, Sodomites and Aegyptians; Rev. 11, 2, 8, 18. not the * 1.759 saincts in Rome; for she is not of their faith and sanctitie. But you will say, she is the natural posteritie of them. Nay, ther is not so much as likelihood therof, much less any certainty. For besides the bloody persecutions in those times, that did cut off the godly; there were after that, many changes of the Romane state, & great cōmotions, that heavens departed away as a scrol when it is rolled, every mountayn & ile were moved out of their places, Kings, Captayns and all sorts of men sled and hid themselves; Rev. 6, 14, 15, so great were the trou∣bles of those times. And for particulars, Alaricus with his Gothes above a thowsand yeres agoe, did † 1.760 take, spoyl and burn Rome, in the yere of Christ 414. After that agayn within 44. yeres, Gense∣ricus with his Vandals * 1.761 took and spoiled it, and Rome for a time remayned without any inhabitant. A few yeres after, †’ 1.762 did Odoa∣cer with an other company, invade Italie and conquer Rome, put the Emperour to flight, made himself King, and did much spoyl. Then Theodoricus and the Ostrogothes took it; and after him a∣gayn

Bellisarius with his armie, wann it: But above al, Totilas King of the Gothes, in the yere of our Lord, 546. after all the former invasions, a 1.763 did overthrow Rome quite, cast down the walls, burn the howses, and made it so desolate, that there remayned in it ney∣ther man nor woman. These turmoiles in Rome, within the space of a few yeres, being observed, and the possessing of that land by those forreyners the Gothes, who b 1.764 mixed them selves with the people, and degenerated into the name of Jtalians, and other plagues afterwards c 1.765 by the Saracens that kylled innumerable sowls in Rome & Italie: these & the like may teach us, how unpossible it is to shew that the present church of Rome, is so much as the natural poste∣ritie of the Saincts in Pauls time: though if they were, yet would it help them no more in this estate, then the Ismaelites & Aedomites which were the natural seed of Abraham. And Adonisedek with his Amorites and Iebusites in Ierusalem, (Josh 10, 1. &c,) may as wel be justified to be Gods true Church, because of Melchisedek King & Preist of God, who with his faithful company dwelled there 5. or 6. hundred yeres before: Gen. 14, 18. &c. as the popish Beast with his Iesuites and marked slaves at this day, may be pleaded for, be∣cause of the godly that lived in Rome 15, or 16. hundred yeres a∣gone. And thus their reasons from Israel, are also impertinent to this estate: they might wel serve for the times wherin Iohn lived, when the true d 1.766 Churches were many of them apostate: but the Ae∣gyptians and Babylonians are shadowes of our Antichristians, a∣mong whom their hethenish abominations are spiritually accom∣plished. Rev. 11.••.

But they plead stil, e 1.767 Jn that the Church of Rome hath al the divine things in the scriptures, it is of God & a Church: in that it hath them al cor∣rupt, that is of it self, and it is a corrupt Church. The Church is not taken away by corruption, unless it be total &c. I answer stil they take for gran∣ted, that which they should prove; and which I have before again and agayn disproved. It is not properly the old Church of Rome corrupted; but a new church arisen out of the bottomless pit, cary∣ing the shew and titles of the old. It is not the woman f 1.768 fled into the wildernes: but an other woman g 1.769 or citie, reigning over the Kings of the earth. The Lamb Christ is not there, as on mount Sion with his 144. thowsand, having his fathers name written on their for∣heads: Rev. 14, 1. but the Wolf Antichrist with his h 1.770 sheeps skyn &

lambs horns, is there with his armie of Canaanites as a 1.771 on moūt Maggedon. At first those Gentiles invaded the courts of Gods tē∣ple, and trode down the holy citie, Rev. 11.2. as the Babylonians of old dealt with Gods sanctuarie: Ps. 79.1. &c. Ier. 51.1.3. &c. Lam. 1.10. If that army of infidels were Gods true Church: so is the synagogue of Antichristians. And the Hethens in their altars, temples, sacrifices &c. had the divine things of God among them, as wel, if not better, then hath the man of syn and his worshipers, in their sacrifice of the Mass, and other manifold idolatries. The du∣tie of those that are in the popish Church and see their corruptions, is (they b 1.772 say) such as of those children that dwel with their adulterous mother: that is, to abhorr her syn, with speech and signe to cal her back from evil, & ab∣steyn themselves from it, and in al things cleav to their father, & betake thē∣selves into his closet &c. I answer, thus it appeareth, that these our opposites are returned to acknowledge the whore of Rome to be their mother: whom they feign to be as woman which c 1.773 lyeth in a deadly sort swollen with waters of the dropsie, or with poison, which d 1.774 had long agoe given up the ghost, if God by the imposition of his grace &c. had not nourished and kept her warm. Now to leav their mother thus on her sick bed, as they have doon e 1.775 (disclayming al Christian dutie unto her which is due to a true Church in corruption,) is but the part of unnatural children. Whiles God dooth nourish & keep her warm, wil they quite abandon her? let them return and cherish her also, and al her members, and see if ther be any baulm to heal her wounds, and to comfort her. As for us, we have been taught of God, that in respect of him she is dead long agoe in her syns; (Rev. 20.5. with Ephes. 2.1.) having been the f 1.776 marked whore & wor∣shiper of the Beast, from which death she is not risen to live & reign with Christ. Although to this world, she liveth and reigneth in pleasure, til at one day death otherwise also come upon her, & she be burnt with fire, Rev. 18.7.8. And then shal we be so far from mourning at her funeral, as we shal rejoyce g 1.777 with the heavenly multitude, and sing Hallelujah, when God hath given h 1.778 Sodoms judgment on her, and we see her smoke rise up for evermore, Rev. 19, 1.2.3.

Finally, to back M. Iunius judgment, they i 1.779 cite Amandus Po∣lanus, & Bart. Keckerman, who sayd that Antichrist shal sit in the tem∣ple of God, not Jewish but Christian, &c. and as a rotten apple is an apple

but corrupt; so that Church is corrupt &c. I answer, they may I confess cite diverse men, that were mistaken, in judging of that rotten church, which wil help these our opposites nothing, who have seen and ac∣knowledged better, & now goe back. Bernard was a learned man in his time, and is counted a Sainct, and he playnly reproved many Romish abominations, and sayd, b 1.780 the beast in the Revelation, which hath a mouth speaking blasphemies, occupieth Peters chaire: yet himself doted overmuch upō the bewty of that harlot, when he wrote thus at an other time to her Leman the Pope, c 1.781 Thou art the great sacrificer, the cheif Preist, thou art Prince of Bishops, heyr of th'Apostles; thou art in primacie Abel, in government Noah, in patriarchship Abraham, in order Melchisedek, in dignity Aaron, in authoritie Moses, in judgship Samuel, in power Peter, in anoynting Christ. It is not therfore to be marveiled at, though wise & godly men be mistaken; for in many things we syn all. Jam. 3, 2. But I have shewed how the scriptures doo judge of this d 1.782 sorceress; and could also allege many learned mens judge∣ments; but I wil goe no further then our own country. Mr Cart∣wright speaking of the baptising of children sayth, e 1.783 Jf both (parents) be Papists, or condemned heretiks &c. their children cannot be received [to baptisme] because they are not in the covenant &c. And agayn, f 1.784 Jf the corruption be such as destroyeth the foundations, as in the Arians which o∣verthrow the person of Christ, as in the Papists which overthrow the office of Christ, they being no Church, ought to have no priviledge of the church. Mr Perkins, writeth thus, g 1.785 As for th'Assemblies of Papists, understanding companies of men holding the Pope for their head, and beleeving the doctrine of the council of Trent; in name they ar caled Churches, but in deed they are no true or sound members of the catholik church; for both in their doctrine, & in their worship of God, they rase the very foūdatiō of religiō. And agayn; h 1.786 Jt is no more a church in deed, then the carkes•• of a dead man, that weareth a li∣ving mans garment, is a living man, though he look never so like him. And agayn; he hath a treatise and Assertion, that A reprobate may in truth be made partaker of all that is conteyned in the religion of the church of Rome, and a Papist by his religion cannot goe beyond a reprobate: and bringeth 4. arguments for proof hereof, and endeth with this Corolarie, that A man being indued with no more grace then that which he may obteyn by the religion of the Church of Rome, is stil in the state of damnation. D. Fulk, answering the counterfeit Catholik saith a 1.787 Jt is evident that the true

Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles times: and telleth the Pa∣pist b 1.788 yow cry the Catholik Church, the Catholik Church, when yow have nothing in deed, but the Synagogue of Sathan. Agayn c 1.789 The Church of An∣tichrist is founded upon 7 hills, Rev. 17. upon the traditions, dreames, fanta∣sies and devises of men &c. Therfore (sayth he) in no wise may she be called the city of God, but Babylon the mother of fornication, Sodom, & Aegypt, where our Lord is dayly crucified in his members. D. Willet answering Bellarmin sayth d 1.790 We deny utterly that they are a true visible Church of Christ, but an Antichristian Church, and an assembly of Heretiks, & ene∣mies to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Agayn he sayth e 1.791 2. Thes. 2. he shal sit in the temple of God, that is, the visible Church, that which sometime was the true visible Church, as the Church of Rome, and after should be so tak••n, reputed and chalenged, as it is at this day by the Papists &c. He shal sit in the Temple of God, that is, take upon him the name & ti∣tle of the Church, and yet an adversary unto it. And agayn, f 1.792 The Turk is out of the Church, and so in truth is the Pope, but yet he challengeth to him and his, the name of the Church. M. Bale g 1.793 compareth the Pope and Turk togither, thus, So glorious are the pretenses of Romish Pope & Ma∣homet, that they seem unto them which regard not these warnings, the very Angels of light, and their Churches most holy congregations, being very di∣vels, with the very dregs of darknes. The Pope in his Church hath ceremonies without number, none end is there of their babling prayers, their portases, bedes, temples, altars, songs, howrs, bells, images, organs, ornaments, Iewels. lights, oilings, shavings &c. that a man would think they were proctours of pa∣radise. On the other side Mahomet in his Church is plenteous also in holy ob∣servations, they wash themselves oft, frequent their temples, pray 5. tymes in the day, they reverently incline, they lye prostrate on the ground, they fervent∣ly cal to God,* 1.794 they absteyn from wine, they abhor idols &c. But unto what end this holynes leadeth, the sequel declareth. Daniel maketh these two but one, because they are both of one wicked spirit &c. The Pope maketh his boast, that he is the High Preist, he is of equal power with Peter, he cannot err, he is head and spouse of the Church &c. Mahomet braggeth also that he is that great Prophet, the promised Messias, the Apostle of both testaments &c. He is wel contented that Christ be an holy Prophet, and a most worthy crea∣ture, yea the word of God, the sowl of God, and the spirit of God, conceived of the Holy Ghost, but he wil in no case grant him to be the Son of God, nor that he dyed here for mans redemtion. Both these two mainteyners of mischief allow Moses law, the Psalter, the Prophets, and the Gospel, yea they com∣mend

them, advance them, sing them, read them, honour them &c. yet wil they have their own filthy lawes preferred above them, the Pope his execrable decrees, and Mahomet his wicked Alkoran: ells wil they murther men without measure. Thus though they outwardly appear very vertuous, yet are they the malignant Ministers of Satan, denying the Lord which hath re∣deemed them. By these may wee mesure their inferiour Merchants, having their livery & mark. I might allege many moe, especially of the Mar∣tyrs in England, which dyed in this testimonie against that false whore; but it is ynough that Gods word dooth condemn her, as before is manifested.

The 6. point of difference: in the letter.

WE had learned a 1.795 that al particular congregations are by al [ VI] means convenient to have the counsel and help one of a∣nother, in al needful affaires of the Church, as mēbers of one bo∣dy in the common faith: yet here when differences had arisen a∣bout 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 abstey∣ned 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 scrip∣tures 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 b 1.796 or∣deyned that some should goe up to Ierusalem, unto the Apostles & Elders about the question. And the messengers were c 1.797 sent forth of the Church, and d 1.798 were received by the Church at Ierusalem, & the Apostles and Elders, who e 1.799 came togither with one accord, & after discussing and agreement, wrote to the Church of Antioch, what had f 1.800 seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them. And

Paul sheweth a reason of such mutual entercourse, when he sayth, Came the word of God out from you eyther came it unto yow onely? 1 Cor. 14.36. Wherfore seing the word of God, was come unto the Church of Leyden, as unto us; and considering the practise that was in the APOSTOLIKE Churches hereto∣fore, and our profession to walk according; it is but a sory an∣swer to say they would permitt of it, if others did it; as Moses a 1.801 per∣mitted the bill of divorse, for b 1.802 the hardnes of mens harts; and as Paul spake a thing c 1.803 by permission, not by commandement. For we think those Apostolical practises, Act. 15. to be in sted of commande∣ments 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 conten∣tious 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 er∣ror, 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 pra∣ctise in Israel, farr better then these our opposites can doo for the power of their Eldership.

4 Their next exception about a letter written by some to that church, a copy wherof was desired, but not granted &c. is an occasion taken by

that accident. But they know, that before that letter was written, they signified their unwillingnes to intreat their help: and now were glad, that they had gotten a show to hold them off. 2. For the Letter mentioned, I did think it was meet they should have sent it, and so I wish they had: though they shewed reasons of their not doing it for the present, but have since that time sent 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 sig∣nified. 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 con∣sent 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 par∣ticulars: 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 o∣ther points, so farr as we could, and ended with them. What rea∣son 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

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 absolute∣ly as did they. But thus have they turned every stone, to see if they could find any colour, for vvithstanding the help of the Church of Leyden: vvith vvhat vveight and equitie, let the prudent judge.

Of the 7. articles which they obiect unto us; as contrarie to our former profession.

They a 1.804 pretend more sound and better observations that they could send and spread out against us. Let us bring them to the trial.

* 1.8051. WHeras (say they) wee had learned and professed, that Christ was the onely King and Lord of his Church, and had left un∣to it among men but a ministerial government, and that all the multi∣tude of the members the saincts, ought to obey & submit to the Eldership in every Church: Now we have lately been taught, * 1.806 that the people as Kings have power one over an other: and that the saincts being Kings are superior to their officers, because the order of Kings is the highest order or estate in the Church, and so an order superiour unto, and above the or∣der of the officers or Eldership. Also that the church may in relation to the officers, being servants therin, be called a Lord &c.

I answer; first our former profession touching Christ the onely King and Lord, we hold it firm in all points as before; and never had so much as a thought to reason against it. Secondly for the ministe∣rial government of the Church by the Officers, we never disputed against it: but doo stil acknowledge the whole Church and every member is to submit unto their ministration in the Lord. Our cō∣troversie was about the Churches power, as we have b 1.807 before mani∣fested. Thirdly, for the people being Kings, we neyther taught nor doo teach otherweise then as we alwayes c 1.808 professed; namely that they are a d 1.809 royal Preisthood, made by Christ unto God, both e 1.810 Kings and Preists, and that reign on the earth: not one over an other, as they speak, but one with another, in the fellowship of the faith of Christ. That f 1.811 every Christian is a g 1.812 King and Preist unto God, to spie out, censure, and cut down syn as it ariseth, with that two edged sword that proceedeth out of Christs mouth. These things heretofore both we

and they professed: which now they would injuriously turn to be against Christ the onely King, and against the ministerial goverment of his officers: such collections, as we think our common adversaries (that make conscience of their words▪) would be ashamed for to make. Touching Mr. Robinsons book which they allege, I have desired himself to answer, which he was willing to doo, and hath written as foloweth.

Mr Robinsons answer.

Because Mr Iohnson hath in his “ 2.1 Answer touching the division ex∣pressly taxed my book against M. Bernard, I think it meet to insert a breif answer to his exceptions, as followeth. He there writeth thus.

Wheras we had learned, and professed that Christ was the onely King, and Lord of his Church, and had left unto it among men, but a ministerial government, and that al the multitude of the members, the saincts ought to obey, and submitt to the Eldership in every Church: Now we have lately been taught, that the people as Kings have power one over another: and that the saincts being Kings are superiour to their officers, because the order of Kings is the highest order in the Church &c. Also that the Church may in relation to the officers being servants therein, be caled a Lord, &c. And for this he quoteth my book, p. 217 225. adding that I advance the people one above another as Kings, intitle them with kingly and lordly power in the outward policie and affayrs of the church, by which as the Prelates on the one hand, so the people on the other hand become idols.

Acknowledging the former and latter part of that he sayth we have formerly professed, I except against the midle clause of the sentence, in sundry respects. First, in that he drawes the question, which is a∣bout the power of Christ in the Church (common to all) to the go∣vernment and guydance of the Church in the use of this power, which is peculiar to the officers: which may also more clearly appear to him that reades the places he quotes in the margent, wherein he conclu∣deth (though more covertly) a double vntruth: the one, that, because the government of the Officers is onely ministerial and not Kingly, therefore there is no Kingly power left vnto the Church, or commu∣nicated with the Saynts for the suppressing of sin: the other that, be∣cause the Officers are the onely governours of the Church, and so by vs acknowledged, therefore they onely have the power of Christ. And thus he would closely wrap up the Churches power, in the officers government, and not be seen in it. For the clearing then of the dif∣ference between government, and power; it must be considered, that by government may eyther be vnderstood the whol•• ••••••••ensation of Christs Kingly office, whither inward, or outward, whither by him∣self or vp others: and so this power, we speak of, is comprehended vn∣der

it as a part thereof. Or it is taken more strictly for the guidance, and ordering of the Church in her Publique affayres, and the admi∣nistration, and exequution of them: and so it apperteyneth to the Offi∣cers and is clean another thing then the power in question. For the proving of this difference. The Apostle Paul wrytes to the whole Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous man, * 2.2 by the power of the Lord Iesus Christ. This Power he would have the whole Church to vse; but yet would not have the whole Church to become governours, nor to take vpon them government, but the of∣ficers onely: by which it appeareth that government, and power, are divers things. I do further adde, what if the whole Eldership should be charged by 2. or 3. witnesses, with heresy, blasphemy, or the like crime, and complaynt thereof be made to the Church? Mr. Iohnson in this his † 2.3 Answer cōfesseth that the Church (he would be as∣ked whither womē and childrē or no,) may depose al her officers joyntly, persisting in transgression, though in the same place he mince the matter too small, in saying they may depose, or refuse them, & separate from thē, and againe, refuse them. Wheras to depose, and to separate from, or refuse, are very divers, For 1. to separate from the Eldership requires no power, but libertie, and therfore may be doon by one man, or wo∣man, upon just occasion: so cannot deposition be, upon any occasion, but by the Church: for which deposition of al the officers of the king∣dom of Christ, the church; a man would think the power of Christ were needful, and that by it such a judgment should passe out. Be∣sides, the Church in deposing her officers, dooth not separate her self from them, (to speak properly) but them from her. Wel, to take the least libertie he wil give the people. If they may separate from al their officers persisting in transgression, then they must receive the com∣playnt of sin, which is orderly brought, and by sufficient witnesses, a∣gainst them, and must examine, and judge the matter. Now if it ar∣gue power to receive a complaynt of sin against one brother, and to examine, and judge it, and so to censure him by excōmunication, if ther be cause; dooth it not also argue power to receav a complaynt of sin agaynst all the officers, to examine, and judg it, and so to censure them, as their is cause, by deposition? But what now shall the Elders do accounting themselves innocent, and wrougfully accused, whilst the Church thus examineth things, and judgeth of them? Shall they sur••ease their government, and fayl the Church in so great a ••eed? and would M. Iohnson so practise? or are they not now to do a speciall work of theyr government, not onely in preserving order, but in di∣recting, instructing, and guiding the Church by the wod of God in her whole procedings. By which it appeareth, that judging of sin, and po∣wer to suppresse it, is one thing, and government for the right use, and ordering of the same, another thing. The officers which are jud∣ged do govern, and the bod•• of the Church which judgeth them, is

governed by them. We may yet further see this difference even in the Lordly governments of this world, and that both in Peace and Warre.

In the civile government of our own land, (then the which none in the world in the right vse of it is more excellent,) when a malefactor comes to be arraigned at the Assises, or Sessions, he is to be tryed by his country, (a competent company, where all cannot possibly passe vpon him) which they cal the Iury, whose power and sentence is of such force, as that the Lord Cheif justice himself, and all the Bench with him cannot proceed agaynst it, eyther for the quitting or cōdem∣ning of the person: and yet the Bench governeth the whole action, and the Iury is by them, according to law, to be governed. I wish the Elders with whō we have to do, would allow the body of the church the like liberty, at their Sitting, as they call it, that is, at their spiritu∣all Sessions: or rather that they would better consider, that they are as Ministers to * 2.4 stand, and serve, and not as Lords to sit, and judge.

Lastly when an army is sent against the Kings and their own ene∣mies, the government is in the Captains, and Officers, but so is not al the power for fighting with, and subduing of their, and their kings enemies. Neyther is all the power of the church, which is an army with banners, in the officers alone, for the the subduing of Christs, and their enemies, sin, and Sathan, though the government be. Thus may the difference plainly be seen betwixt power, and government: in the opening of which I have been the longer,* 2.5 because 1. I think it a mayn ground of our controversie. 2. Our opposites do much insult over us, as speaking contradictions, when we yeeld the officers all the goverment, and yet deny thē al the power.) 3. The weaker sort ar much misled, and caried away thorough want of discerning this dif∣ference.

I proceed to a second thing, and affirm, that Christ hath not left to the church amōg men onely a ministerial power (which he confusedly calleth government) as he sayth. He hath left the word of God, and gospell in the church, which is lively, and mighty in operation,* 2.6 peircing even to the dividing asunder of the soul, and spirit &c. ruling, and reign∣ing in, and over the very hearts, and lives of men; binding their con∣sciences: and bringing into captivitie every thought to the obedience of Christ. I know men can onely minister this power, whither in doc∣trine, or discipline, as they speak. But it is one thing to say the pow∣er is onely ministerial, and another thing, that men can onely mini∣ster it. For men may be the ministers onely of that power, which is kingly, and Lordly in it self, and so over men, as this is. So the saints can only minister their kingly power by participatiō of Christs ānoynting, as one speciall grace they have received: of which more hereafter.

Now in laying down the things, wherwith he chargeth me, he al∣ters

my words, misinterprets my meaning, and conceals that which I have writtē, and he read, in my book, for the explaning of the same.

And first he sayth I have taught that the people are as Kings one o∣ver another; that I advance them one over another, as Kings, and above their governours intitling thē with Kingly, & Lordly power, (that is go∣verment, as he explaines himself) in the outward policie of the Church.

I doo not in these places, or any other, advance the people one over another, much lesse over their officers, in the outward policy of the Church, that is (as he explains his meaning) in the government of it. I doo every where profess the Officers the governours, and the people the governed by them.

Neyther do I any where affirm, that the people ar Kings, or as kings one over another, as he chargeth me. I say in one place, that the saynts are not Kings for themselves alone,* 2.7 but for their brethren also, as they are not Preists onely for themselves, but for their brethren. And in another place,* 2.8 that every one of the faithful is a King, not onely to him self, but to every other member, as he is a Preist, and a Prophet &c. Here is a King one for another, and one to another, but not one over another, (much lesse over the officers) for government, in the external policie of the Church. The playn and simple truth then is; whatsoever men eyther mistake of ignorance, or suggest of an evil mind, that we do not cal the saynts Kings in respe••t of outward order, and government, as though they were to order, and govern the Church in her publick af∣faires, which is the work of the Officers: but as they are partakers of Christs kingly anoynting, by his spirit, common to the head, and the members, and so Kings by participation, and indowed with king∣ly power, for the cōquering and subduing of the power of sin, and Sa∣than, not onely in themselves, but in their brethren also, by the sword of the spirit, the word of God, which they are to minister unto them, as all other graces in their order.

And this meaning being held, it may safely be taught that they are over one another, that is, to watch one over another, and so as kings to conquer their spirituall enemies one in another mutually. But I wil rather insist vpō mine own words, for, or to one another, as being most fit to shew that cōmuniō of the saints in this grace, as in the rest; which he also in all equity should have done. And thus I will prove this royall cōmunion of the saynts. And for them that make them∣selves merry herewith,* 2.9 let them suffer me to speak, and when I have spo∣ken, let them mock on.

And first it must be observed that the place and scriptures which M. Iohnson notes in our Confession to prove Christ the onely King of his Church, prove him as wel, (and that truely) to be the onely Preist & Prophet of his Church. And if notwithstanding his sole prophecie, and preisthood peculiar to him, as the head, the saynts may be Prophets and Preists as members, by cōmunication, they may also be Kings by cōmunication notwithstanding his peculiar imperiall power. And

so the scriptures testifie that he hath made vs kings, and preists unto God even his Father, and so our Father.* 2.10

But it wilbe answered, that Christ hath made vs Kings to resist, subdue, and conquer our spiritual enemies, Sin, Sathan, this world, and our worldly lusts, by * 2.11 the sword of the spirit, the word of God, and the work of the spirit, in and by the same. I grant it, and therupon conclude, that since Gods people are also by the same weapons, and means to resist and subdue the power of sin in their brethren,* 2.12 they are also kings in the same respec••, unto them.

The saynts are † 2.13 Christians: and that for, and in respect one of an∣other,* 2.14 as members vnder Christ, one of another: and therfore Kings. For to be a Christian for another, is nothing els but by participation of Christs annoynting, to be a Preist, Prophet, and King for another. Ad vnto this, that whatsoever grace any member of the body hath re∣ceived, it is for the use, and edification of the rest, and so in order to be administred by him as a good disposer of the grace of God.* 2.15 And must this royal grace then, which the saynts have received, find no time nor place for the dispensation of it, vnto others?

When a brother comes to subdue,* 2.16 and ma••e conquest of some spi∣ritual enemy, or sin, appearing in his brother, eyther privately, or publiquely, in his place and order he dooth this as a fellow member, and Christian, and so by one of his three states, and indowments, of preist, prophet, or king (for he hath no office, wherein he administreth:) but by neyther of the two former, therfore by the latter, and as a king, and so made by Christ.

Lastly, the people are by M. Iohnsons own graunt,* 2.17 to choose their officers, as also upon just occasion to depose them. And this, as the former, they doo not as Preists, or Prophets, and therfore by their kingly indowment from, and vnder Christ.

And thus much to prove the saynts in their cōmunion (as Preists to offer up the prayers one of another, and Prophets to instruct one another, so also) partakers of the kingly dignity of Christ, as his mē∣bers, for the suppressing, and conquering of sin appearing, one in an∣other, in that order which Christ hath left. And where do I in al this, as is imputed to me, advance the people, as others do the Prelates, and make them Idols? Do I give them power to prescribe and appoint o∣ther formes of Gods worship, offices of Ministery, canons, ceremo∣nies, or holy dayes, then Christ hath prescribed, and appointed? to bind the conscience by urging subscription ex animo, to their own in∣ventions, or to loose conscience by dispensations to sin, as of plurali∣ties, non residencies, and the like? or that one man should set up, and pul down ministers and excommunicate, and absolve both ministers, and people by his sole authority? If another man should thus have charged Mr Iohnsō when he mainteyned the same libertie of the bre∣thren (if nor greater) which I now do, though it may be not under

the same terms, he would have pronounced it blasphemy in him. B passing by his terms of provocatiō, and reproach, I come to another exception: which is, that I make the order of saynts superiour unto the order of officers; to wit, in it self, as I there explayne my meaning▪ and not in respect of government, as he traduceth me. I know that he which guideth, ordereth, and directeth another, is in that his art, and work, superiour vnto him that is so guided, ordered, and directed. So is the Pilote in guiding the ship, superiour, and above all the pas∣sengers in it, though the King, and his Councell: so is the Physition in ordering the kings body; as is also the meanest guide in leading, and directing him, and his army Royall in unknown places. So are the officers superiour to the Church in their art,* 2.18 or work of government▪ which is the opening and applying of the scriptures to the use, and di∣rection of the Church: but as this is done by them, in an order of ser∣vice, and not of Lordship, so I judge, and call them inferiour. And so in my book, I make them equall in their persons, as saynts: supe∣riour in the word they minister, and in the place of God: not so in their order of servants, wherin they minister, but inferiour.

* 2.19My reasons there brought to prove mine affirmation, bycause he here medles not with, I also forbear in this place to confirm; onely a few words of one of them, upon which the next, and last exception de∣pendeth. Which is, that the order of Church-officers is inferiour to the order of the saints, bycause their order is an order of † 2.20 service, and servants unto the saynts the Church. I know Kings may be sayd to serve their people, and so to become their servants, but this is onely in respect of their love towards them, and care for them; but not in re∣spect of their order, which is a Lordship, and Kingship, by which they reign over their people, as their servants, and subjects. The like may be sayd of Christ himself, as that he served his disciples, and be∣came as a servant, &c. And for that it must be considered, that as in the things wherin he did thus serve, and become as a servant, he did in his love make himself inferiour to his disciples, and preferred thē be∣fore himself: as in * 2.21 giving his life a ransome for many: in being † 2.22 as he that serveth at the table wherat his disciples sate, (in which respect he ex∣pressly teacheth thē to be greater thē himself:) and in washing their feet as they sate at supper; so was not his order an ord of service in it self, but of headship,* 2.23 and kingship: which if our Ch:••officers could prove their order to be, we would then acknowledge it in deed superiour to the order of saynts. But their order being merely an order of servāts, me thinks cōmon sense should serve to judge the same inferiour to the order of the Church, whose servants under Christ they are.

I ad in my book, pag. 225. that, the officers being by their order, servants, the Church may in that relation be called a Lord: not for the governing of them, in the outward policie, and affaires in the church, as he injuriously collects: but as they are for the Churches use, and

service; which he conceals: though I expresly so note in the same place; as also that the same Church-servants are Church-governours: the go∣gernment of the Church being a mere service. And for the thing If the officers be to be called servants to the Church, what is the Church to be called to the officers? A servant is a relative, and must have a correlative: and I would know by what name he would call it, if not by the name of Lord, Mayster, Mistress, or the like. And if he deny this, he takes away from men the use of cōmon reason, and understā∣ding. Let the servants know, yea though stewards, as are the Church-officers, add so betrusted with the goverment in a special mā∣ner, that the wife of their Lord, and Mayster, is a degree above thē, and so to be acknowledged by them: least they not onely wrong her, but provoke him to wrath.

Lastly, because he imputes new doctrine to me, I wil note down the doctrine of some few others, both more ancient, and more worthy of respect then my self.

Musculus in his Cōmentaries vpon 1. Cor. 3, 22, 23, 24. Let no man glo∣rie in men, for all are yours &c. sayth thus. Is it not absurd that the † 2.24 greater (to wit the Church) should glory in the less, (to wit the offi∣cers) the * 2.25 Lord or mayster in the servant? And in this sense (sayth he further) the perversnes of the false Apostles is noted, who when they wer servants of the Church, did make of a ‡ 2.26 Mistress, or dame, a servant, and of servants, Lords. And agayn the foolishnes of the Church is taxed, who when they were * 2.27 Lords of their Ministers, gloried in their servants.

Bullinger upon the same place, vers. 21. sayth thus. So great is the dignity of them that beleev, that God hath subjected all things unto thē. It is therfore great folly if the † 2.28 Lord of thinges subject himself to the things &c.

Pareus professor of Heidelberg in his Cōmentaries, upon the same scripture, reproving the churches glorying in Paul, C••phas, &c. and quoting 2 Cor. 4.5. we preach not our selves, but Christ Iesus the Lord, and our selves your servants, for Iesus sake, sayth thus. * 2.29 It is not meet that the Lord should glorie in his servant: wee are your servants, There∣fore &c.

All these, and many moe, call the Church expresly a Lord, in the ve∣ry same relation with me: and yet I suppose, never man chalenged them for making an Idol of it, or setting up a Lordly government: neyther would Mr. Iohnson me, had he not been immoderately jea∣lous for the officers dignity.

Iohn Robinson.

The 2 Article objected.

* 2.30We professed heretofore, that Christ gave the power of receiving in & cutting off, to the whole body togither of every Christian congregation, & not to any one or more members sequestred from the whole &c. Now we have been taught that in cases of question and controversie, the grea∣ter part of the people are the Church; though al the Elders and other bre∣thren be against them, &c. and so have the power to receiv in & cut off &c.

I answer, ther is no contradiction in these things; we hold stil in all points according to the article alleged: neyther ever taught we the people onely to be the Church sequestred from their officers; but the officers governing, and the people governed, to be the Church which hath the power, to use in holy order. But if these officers fal into heresie or wickednes themselves, or to abett wic∣kednes in others, and wil not be reclaymed by any holy means the Church can use, then may they by the Church which chose them, be deposed, as unworthy of their places, yea and excommunica∣ted, and so al other impenitent sinners. and this by the voices of the most of the congregation, if al consent not; aswel as members or officers are received in by the voices of the most, if some doo dissent: for ther is one power for them both. And these our oppo∣sites must eyther manifest, that if one or 2 officers or members doe dissent in a controversie, ther is a sequestration of them from the whole, and the Church then hath not the power of Christ to receav in and cutt off: or els al may see, that this is a colourable accusation of theirs, & no contradiction of ours. For if the consent of al & every one, be not necessaryly to be had, they dissenting through their ignorance, frowardnes, or the like: thē the most voices must prevayl. But how farr their new doctrine (that the Elders are the Church,) is, both from our former professiō and from equitie, I have before shewed.

The 3 Article.

* 2.31We wrote heretofore, that the Elders have the reyns of government cōmitted to them: now we are taught that the governmēt of the church is not Aristocratical, yea the people as Kings have the power &c.

I answer; we differ not from our former profession, but they de∣ceiv the reader, by turning government into power, which we in our publik profession heretofore distinguished, and so doo still: giving the government of the whole Church, and all the actions of it, un∣to

the officers: the power to the whole body; and so to the officers with the people, as joyntly Kings and Preists: of which things we have spoken before. We never held the Church to be a mere Aris∣tocratie, as they speak, intending that the cratos or power should be in the hands of a few: neyther shal these men ever prove it. And in the book which they cite, † 2.32 in the very same place (though they dis∣semble it,) we shew the Church (not the Elders onely) to have Christs * 2.33 power to judge al within the same; and that the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed to the whole Church, as the Protestants have heretofore testified against the Papists. That these men doo but feign contradiction, and would blind the reader, by confounding the Churches power and goverment, as one.

The 4. article.

Wee professed hertofore, that no sacraments should be ministred,* 2.34 until the Pastors or Teachers were chosē & ordeyned into their office: now it is held by some, that seing al the holy things of God are the churches, & peo∣ple without officers are a church, therfore they may without officers have the use of the sacraments and al the holy things of God, and consequent∣ly may receive in by baptisme, confirm by the Lords supper, cast out by excommunication &c. And in this writing sent unto yow, it may be ob∣served, how they inferr that people without officers may cast out, and therfore may receiv in, ther being one power for both.

I answer; they wrong us, and abuse their readers. 1. There is not to my knowledge (as before I * 2.35 testified) any one man amōg us, that held or holdeth that people without officers may have the use of the sacraments; but we all continue in the same profession that we made before. 2. It is frawd, and abuse of the reader, and inju∣rie to me, when they first speak of receiving in by baptisme, and then allege from my letter, that the people without officers may receiv in: as if they would bear the world in hand, I therfore hold, they may baptise. Wheras first the scripture sheweth that persons uncircū∣cised (and consequently unbaptised), may pass into the Church-co∣venant of the Lord, Deut. 29.10.11.12.13. compared with Jos. 5.2.5.

Secondly the children of the faithful, are born members of the Church, and are in the covenant before they are baptised. Third∣ly a man excommunicated, may be received into the Church, yet not by baptising of him. And 4. we heretofore in our Confession when we † 2.36 denyed the sacraments in a Church without officers, yet * 2.37 professed they had then power to receiv in members. Wher∣in

now are we contrary to our former faith? Doo not these things rather show, how they seek to make strife, where none is.

The 5. article

* 2.38We had learned, that none may usurp or execute a ministerie, but such as are rightly caled by the Church wherof they stand ministers, unto such offices, and in such maner as God hath prescribed in his word: now it is held by some that people out of office may execute al the works & duties of the ministerie, for baptisme, Lords supper, censures &c. And these men in their second exceptiō here write, there is one power for receiving in and casting out, and that people without officers may doo both, as is observed before.

I answer; their frawd and wrongful dealing is also observed be∣fore; and here to make their syn the more remarkable, they pro∣claym it the second time. Of ministring the sacraments, and of receiving in and casting out of members, and against usurping or executing a ministerie without due caling, we hold as alwayes here∣tofore: they repete the same things, but to their own further blame; for our professed enemies, doo not ordinarily more wrest our words.

The 6. article

* 2.396. We learned and used heretofore to apply to our estate and use, the things that the scriptures teach concerning the governours and people in Israel. Now we ar excepted and opposed against, if we doo so, with these exceptions and the like, that they had civil authority and government, which the church hath not; that they could not in Israel forgive one an o∣thers syn, as we can now: that the people now have more power then in Israel, because now we folow Christ into heaven, wheras the people might not folow the high Preist into the most holy place &c.

I answer; the right applying of our estate to Israel, we alwayes have and stil doo approve: but these mens wrested proportions, and making the Church in Mat. 18. to be the same with the Iewes Synedrion or Sessions of civil Magistrates, we doo reprove, and so have doon in our more ancient writings, Refut. of M. Giff. pag. 76. &c. so that no new thing is doon by us.

2. That private men forgave not synns in Israel, so absolutely touching the Church order or politie, as Christians doo now, is e∣vident by the Law, which bound the offender not onely unto re∣pentance and faith * 2.40 in Christ, as also to † 2.41 confess his syn and satis∣fy his “ 2.42 neighbour offended; but withal to bring a trespass offring to

the Preist, (the minister of the Church,) that so the Preist making an attonement for him before the Lord, it should be forgiven him, Levit. 6.2.5.6.7. Now under the Gospel, the Law is, if thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him: Luk. 17.3. neyther is such a man bound to goe to a minister that he may pray for, or forgive him; as the Papists by proportion * 2.43 doe gather. 3. That th'Apostle also sheweth a difference of our Church estate from the Iewes politie, Heb. 9.7.8.9. &c. & 10.19.20. compared with Gal. 4.1.2.3. &c, is manifest: neyther can our opposites deny it; onely they cast stombling blocks in the readers way: saying thus, 1. what if any other would say, that Elders and Kings now should have more power then they had in Jsrael, because they now folow Christ into Heaven &c. To omit their yll framing of the reason, for their most advantage, I answer, they that would so say, should shew their ignorance, or a worse humour, Because Christs Kingdom is not † 2.44 of this world, neyther medled he with Magistrates power, but left it * 2.45 as it was, authorized of God his Father, and not subordinate to his Media∣torship; as “ 2.46 before is shewed: and therfore Magistracie hath ney∣ther more nor less by him now, then in Israel and former ages. But his Church, and so the Magistrates therin as they are Christi∣ans, are advanced to a further degree of grace, then they were in, under the rudiments of the Law, Gal. 4.3.4. &c.

2. The Second block is a marginal note, that yet the people were typically caried in by the high Preist, in the precious stones on his shoulders and brest, as the most holy place it self was a type of Heaven. I answer, this is true, and confirmeth that which I sayd: for if into the earthly sanctuary the people could not freely enter, in their own persons, at any time, but figuratively, although they had so much as by faith in Christ did save them: then is our estate now, as touching the outward Church order and politie, better then theirs, which are not restreyned from any place whither the ministers of the Gospel may them selves enter, but we are a 2.47 the Preists of God and of Christ, and b 2.48 may be bold to enter into the holy place, into the type wherof one∣ly c 2.49 the high Preist under the Law might enter sometimes and the people not at al personally. And in every place we may offer incense unto the name of God, and a pure oblation, Mal. 1.11. and are freed frō those legal prohibitions, d 2.50 touch not, tast not, handle not, and other worldly rudiments under which Israel in their childs estate were in bon∣dage,

Gal 4.3. Therfore the Apostle, which sheweth their estate and ours to be one in substance concerning faith in Christ unto salvati∣on, H••b. 11. sheweth also great differences between their condition and ours touching the clear manifestation of Gods grace, and the outward politie of the Church; Heb. 9. & 10. & 12. Gal. 4.

Finally these things we never intended or extended to any further rights or liberties of the people now, then we find evidently taught us by the doctrine and practise e 2.51 of th'Apostles: that if in any thing we miss (as easily we may,) in the application of those legal types, yet the doctrine confirmed by other playn scriptures, remayneth sound and good. And such differences between Israel and us, we also have put, in our more ancient writings: Discover. pag. 40. & 60.

Their last note is in effect one with the first: shewing how Christ and th'Apostles reasoned wel, from the civil state of Israel, which we grant. Yet I hope they wil not deny, but it is possible for other men to reason amyss, and to make yll proportions from the com∣mon wealth of Israel, as doo the f 2.52 Papists, and as before is manifes∣ted that these our opposites have doon.

The 7. article

* 2.537. We held that the baptism of Rome, was as true baptisme, as circū∣cision in the Apostasie of Israel was true circumcision, and needed not to be renounced and repeted: Now we were taught that the baptism afore∣sayd is an Idol; and we know al Idols &c, are to be renounced and rejec∣ted, Isa. 30.22. and an Idol is nothing in the world, 1. Cor. 8.4. so then such baptism is nothing.

I answer; our former profession and writing hath been, that circumcision in the Apostasie of Israel, a 2.54 could be no true sacrament, no true seal of the covenant of Gods favour unto them: also that baptism deli∣vered in the false church is no true seal of Gods covenant, or true sacrament. Mr. Iohnson himself hath defended this very same, that b 2.55 in that estate of their Apostasie it could not be a true Sacrament, and so for the baptism in Rome; not a true but a false sacrament. So the contrarie∣tie must be thus, heretofore we held it to be a false sacrament, but now we were taught it is an Jdol. Between these I hope al men of judgment, which know what an Jdol meaneth, wil think ther is no contradic∣tion. But is not this good conveyance, for them to say; as true baptism, as circumcision in the Apostasie of Jsrael was true circumcision: wheras we professed of that baptisme (as also of that circumcision)

that it could not be a true sacrament unto them, but a false? Wil not the judicious reader see, that they cast a myst before mens eyes, to dis∣grace the truth which themselves formerly professed? As for the consequences, I have before c 2.56 answered them; and shewed how though the Idol be put away, ther need no repeting again of the outward washing: and have proved that Antichrist hath turned the Lords baptisme into an Idol, as the Iewes did the brazen serpēt, d 2.57 by burning incense to it: and that the most conscionable in our own nation have so professed, and the Vniversitie of Cambridge printed, e 2.58 that the church of Rome transformeth the sacraments (yea even Christ, and God himself) into Jdols. But these our opposites are gone from the truth and from themselves herein, into the tents of our common adversaries, M. Gifford and others, who would have concluded hereupon a new outward washing: but were refuted * 2.59 by Mr Barrow. And Mr Iohnson once professed that f 2.60 he thought he should never have seen any more absurd writing then M. Giffards; though now he reasoneth like him. He also told the Oxford Doctors, that g 2.61 to hold the popish church to be a true church, having a true ministerie and true sacraments, or els that they are unbaptised, and must admitt of the A∣nabaptists rebaptisation, are nought els, but gross errours and notorious ab∣surdities. Yet loe how he now presseth us with the same things: and passeth over our reasons rendred heretofore, without answering them as is meet.

Of the conditions of peace, by our Opposites refused, and broken.

HItherto wee have heard the particulars wherin they are gone from their former profession; & again the articles which they have insinuated against us. Now foloweth, the peace which not∣withstanding the former things, wee desired to reteyn with them.

The first.

1. Before our parting, we offred, that notwithstanding our differen∣ces of judgmēt, we would continue togither, if our former practise might be reteyned: but this was refused.

Their answer hereto is.

Which is, as if they should say, they would have continued with vs, if wee would have continued in errour and evil, so found and acknowledged by us: suf∣fering the ordinance of God, touching the Eldership to be troden under foot; the

Elders to be despised and abused by the people, and the whole Church to be con∣tinually subiect to contentions and scandals.

Our reply.

Here first observe, how they can not deny, but thus we offred them: and yet they would bear the world in hand, we left them for their understanding and exposition of Mat. 18, 17. They might have kept their vnderstanding both of that, and other scriptures, if the Churches practise had not been altered. Secondly, how doo their people yet bear themselves & others in hand, that their practise is not changed; but all things continue with them in that respect as before. Eyther their Elders dissemble with them, or they with o∣thers; according to the Philosophers doctrine, that, in such chan∣ges,* 2.62 it behooveth men to feighn and counterfeyt the contrary. Thirdly, the answer is evil & injurious to the truth & people of God: for his or∣dinance touching the Eldership is not troden vnder foot, the Elders despised, &c. by the holy order of the Church judging synners as the Apostle † 2.63 teacheth, and governed in all actions, by “ 2.64 the officers, which was our former practise. These are but contumelies, such as Pa∣pists and lovers of Prelacie, have layd upon the saynts heretofore: and upon such pretenses have excluded the people from choosing their ministers, * 2.65 for avoyding such tumults and uprores, as the primitive Church (they say) was afflicted with. Fourthly what if some persons have miscaried themseves, as can not be denyed: have not some of the Elders also doon the like? And shall the Church, because of the abuses, tyrannies, heresies which their Elders have in all ages brought in: refuse to have any moe Elders? no more may the Elders refuse to have the people to hear and judge causes of publick syn with them, because of the disorder and unrulynes of some; whom the people have been as willing to reprove and censure as the El∣ders themselves. As for the Church subject continually to contentions and scandals &c. it is most true by the Elders means: for (to let pass what we have seen among our selves,) let all histories be looked, & it wil appear the Church hath never more abounded with conten∣tions and scandals, then when al power was in the Ministers hands, and the people excluded. Yea even in the Elders most solemn as∣semblies and Councils; as Gr. Nazianzen in his time complayned, being himself an Elder or Bishop. * 2.66 I am minded (sayth he) to shun all assemblies of Bishops, because I never saw a good event in any Council, that

did not rather increase then diminish our evils. Their contention & ambitiō, passeth my speech.

Secondly, they speak of their offer to bear with us in our difference of judgement, if we would be content to walk peaceably with the Church in that our difference: but this was refused. I answer; they might also (if they had pleased) have shewed the reasons of our refusal, which more thē once we gave them: as, 1. Because we are willed to observ all things whatsoever Christ cōmanded his disciples, Math. 28.20. and therfore his ordinances must not be left in practise, and holden in judge∣ment onely.

2. Because touching the ministerie it is sayd, a man can receiv no∣thing except it be given him from heaven, Ioh. 3, 27. now to the Ministers it is given to * 2.67 feed guide and govern the Church, but not them∣selves to be the Church, and to chalenge the power of the same in things perteyning to the kingdome of Christ.

3. Because touching the people it is sayd Stand fast in the libertie wherwith Christ hath made us free, and be not intangled agayn with the yoke of bondage, Gal. 5.1. but this was a part of the peoples Christian li∣bertie, recovered out of Antichristian bondage, viz. to judge syn∣ners that are within, 1. Cor. 5. and to decide publik causes with their ministers, Act. 15.23.—28. as parts of the same Church and body, 1. Cor. 12.27.28. therfore to be held fast, not onely in judg∣ment but in practise.

4. Because such giving place to the usurpation of the ministers, was the mean of Antichrists beginning and climing to his preemi∣nence; which had the people resisted at first, and practised the Gos∣pel in the order set by Christ, he could not so have prevayled. And now also we should look, that Antichrist being expelled, doo not agayn set in his foot.

5. Because if we holding otherweise in judgment, should let the true practise of the Gospel goe; posteritie after us, being brought into bondage, might justly blame and curse us, that would not stand for the right of the people, in that which we acknowledged to be their due. These things considered, we desired them then, and stil doo, to shew us how we could let goe our ancient practise, until our judgment were by the word of God changed.

The 2. thing by us offred.

2. We desired, that then we might have a peaceable parting; and to be two distinct congregations, ech practising as they were perswaded, yet nourishing brotherly love and unitie. This also they would not agree to, unless we would leav this citie.

Their answer is;

A peaceable parting we grant they desired in word, but in deed stayed not with us, but departed whiles we were considering whither it could lawfully be effected or not. &c.

Our replie.

We desired it in word and deed instantly: alleging the parting of Paul and Barnabas, Act. 15.39. the doctrine of the Apostle, Phil. 3.15.16. the practise of Abram and Lot (though in a civil case) parting to avoyd strife, Gen. 13.8.9. the avoyding of publick re∣proch in the world &c. But whatsoever we could say, perswaded them not, but they withstood us. We stayed long, and had we folowed their delayes, we might have taried to this day, and have had no other answer at their hands. How long have they been considering about their Teachers ordination, and stil it dependeth.

We are not ignorant of their pretenses, to put off the thing they like not, with a consideration. But in deed we had their refusals often, before we parted. Which was much in them that had chā∣ged their former profession, and innovated the practise, that they should so refuse. Had we been the men that had made such in∣novation, and they continued as before: we had surely been ex∣communicated long ere that time of our departing. Of our bu∣synes with the Church of Leyden, it fel out after; and is now to be spoken of, in the third place.

The third thing.

3. We procured, though without their consent, the help of the English church at Leyden, who laboured our peace: a way of peace by these thē∣selves propounded, and by the Church of Leyden and vs agreed to, these after reversed, and stood not unto, unless we would goe dwel out of this citie. And al••hough in the treatie of the agreement, it was testified by the Elders of that Church, that unless it were to the apparant undoing of us and of our families, wee should not be dismissed agayn to dwell here: yet because wee would not absolutely promise to leave this citie, they would not stand to the agreement which themseves had made.

Their answers, & our replies.

Here they seek to wind out themselves from blame, by sundry pretexts, and long narrations. I will breifly touch the principal, being sory to weary the reader with our strifes.

1. First for the thing by them propounded, (of mens going frō the one Church and Pastor to the other) & by us agreed unto; it was not be∣cause we desired or liked such a course: but earnestly desiring peace upō any tollerable cōditions, & seing for the present no unlawfull thing in it, we assented; though the thing would have been much to our detriment. For all of us must have made a journey to Ley∣den and back agayn, with charge and trouble, it being then mid∣winter: and such as could have had means of livelihood there, must there have remayned; which perhaps would have been the one half of us, and so our congregation had been greatly diminished, which was one mayn thing that our adverse brethren plotted, as the e∣vents did manifest. The Church at Leyden also, as we, must have suffred continually their & our members, to goe when they would, into the practise of those errors with our opposite brethrē: a thing which we wil carefully take heed of, how ever we yeild to the like agayn.

2. That the officers of the Church of Leyden did at the first cō∣ceive that we all must remayn with them: we cannot say. Sure wee are, we did not so conceiv; but M. Iohnson so propounded it, as we al even by his words understood it otherweise, and himself being after pressed, could not deny it.

3. That the thing was agreed of, and the second time by them absolutely concluded, & that three were sent with the message after the brethren of Leyden to signifie it, as they write: is true, and past deny∣al.

4. That after they made new motion of an other course, is true also; but they omitt the publik breaking of the former agreement: whē they signifying that forasmuch as they perceived our purpose was to return and live agayn in this citie, they did playnly reverse it.

5. The motion which they made of a double practise, as it was disli∣ked by the Church of Leyden (as they signify:) so we also shewed like reason of our dislike, it being both unlawful for vs to practise syn as it were with the right hand, and righteousnes with the left; & no likelihood of our peace, but of greif and dayly dissentions.

6. Touching the motion made by the Church of Leyden, for coming first to the Elders as Church governours &c. and for admonition be∣ing caried according to the alteration practised and agreed upon; wherupon these our opposites now observ against us, for not yeilding therto, how greatly we oppugned the ordinance of God touching the Elders hearing and judging of causes &c. this rightly weighed, wil shew how greatly we are by them abused. For first, it was such a course as neyther the Church at Leyden would bind themselves to walk in, neyther did these our opposites, or we, think it to be according to the order of God. Secondly they tel us not, (wherfore we desire them in their next to tel us,) whither themselves would sincerely have prac∣tised these things according to the true intendement of the Church of Leyden that motioned them. Thirdly, for the cariage of admo∣nition spoken of; it was found out, and by M. Iohnson himself pub∣likly acknowledged that the controversie between us, was therin closely implied and yeilded unto them, when upon dispising the ad∣monition of the Elders, the parties were to be excommunicated. This being thus manifested, with what conscience could we yeild to practise errour privily brought in under hand: and deny to practise the same thing publickly professed? Would not al men, and even they thē∣selves have blamed us for such dissimulation? Fourthly for com∣ming to the Elders first as governours, vve did then and doo novv yeild it the brethrens duty, in doubts so to come for counsel & ad∣vise: but for to bind all men in most manifest synns vvhich the Church should judge, to come first to the Elders onely, and so to lay it on the brethren as for not doing it, they should be excōmu∣nicated; and yet both sides acknovvledge it is not the order of God: vve told them this vvould be to deal worse then the Phari∣sees, vvhen none of vs vvalked in that vvhich vve professed to be the right vvay, but leaving that, vvould stablish our ovvn traditi∣ons and cast out men for not observing them. These vveighty reasons they overpass, and bear the vvorld in hand how greatly we op∣pugned Gods ordinance touching the Elders: vvhē vve but oppugned the Elders traditiōs, least they should be advanced above the ordināce of God.

Next folovv their reasons vvhy they vvould not stand to their former agreement vvith us, nor have spiritual fellowship (as they write) with us in such estate & walking. 1. Because they could not find warrant

for it in the word of God. I answer, if they acknowledge no warrant found for our peaceable parting here, nor dismissing to an other Church: what remayned, but eyther we must yeild to their errors, which for the reasons foreshewed we might not; or ells part from them as we did; the causes of the division being in them, both by broaching errour, and refusing peace.

2. Their second reason is, because we refused (as they say,) disobeyed and spake evil of the truth and way of God. I answer; first this is to take that for granted, which is the question betvveen us. Secondly if this reason be good, and the truth be vvith us, (as vve doubt not of it:) then they grant us that vve had just cause to leave spiritual fellovvship vvith them, vvhich departed from, and spake evil of, and persecuted the truth and vvay of God, vvherin themselves once wal∣ked with us. Howbeit, if we would have lived at Leyden, all had been peace: is it more lawful, trow we, to speak evil of, and disobey the truth there, then at Amsterdam?

3. Their third reason is, because we refused to continue cōmunion with them, though we might be suffred to walk in peace with protestation in our dif∣ference of judgment. I answer, this having been first offred by us to them, and they refusing it, as before they grant; it cōmeth upon their own heads, if any weight be in it. Secondly, we have shewed sundry reasons from scripture, why we might not so walk: & have never yet heard from them, any like reasons to warant us, to pro∣test against a synful practise, and yet to practise it dayly. If our own harts and mouthes condemn us, * 2.68 God is greater.

4. Their 4. reason is, because some of us professed we would not deal in causes by way of protestation, neither when we were with them nor from them. I answer; first the different mind of some few, is not of weight to break the agreement with us al. Secondly, this might have fallen out also occasionally, if we had lived at Leyden; where they would have had peace with us. So it is our living in this city, that was in deed the onely true cause vvhy they stood not to their agreement, the other are but pretenses.

5. Their 5. reason is, because we went not from one Church & Pastor to another, so to live and remayn, but purposed when we had joyned unto them, presently to return and live here in this town apart from them. I answer; this was in deed that which troubled them; they could not indure us in the same city by thē. Yet they cannot deny but it was promised, we

all should live and remayn there, unless it were to the apparant undoing of us and our families. And were not these loving brethren, that had ra∣ther we and our families should be undoon, then they would want of their wills▪ For what reason (much less necessity) can they shew why we must goe from one church and pastor to an other, and may not continue in the place and state wherin God had called us, with as many officers already among our selves, as the Church of Leyden had; and one a Teacher of the word. They tel us afterward, * 2.69 that the very naming of going to another Church & Pastor, caryeth weight of rea∣son with it: belike because he is a Pastor that sayth it: for word of God shew they none, that binds men to goe to another Church where ther is a Pastor and no Teacher; but forbids them to remain in their own cōmunion and church, where ther is a Teacher and no Pastor. Especially when without the apparant undoing of men & their families, they can not remove their habitation.

6. Their 6. reason is, because by such walking of ours, great reproch would come upon us all, with much dishonur to God &c. I answer, it † 2.70 can not be avoyded but offenses wil come, but woe unto them by whō they come. Yet greater reproch (as we alwayes feared) is come by their refusing peace with us, (unless it were upon unlawful & un∣reasonable conditions,) then vvould have been by our peaceable parting, vvhich vve often and instantly desired.

7. Their last reason is, because they thought there should alwayes be som∣what in such cases used, as wherby the Lord might work upon our conscien∣ces, to consider our estate, and to repent and yeild to the truth and way of God which we had refused & oppugned. I ansvver, first this manifesteth their minds to be farr from peace vvith vs, vvhatsoever they pretended; unless vve vvould yeild to their innovation and prelacie. Secondly this reason, if it be good, serveth asvvel for them that should live at Leyden, as at Amsterdam: unless they vvould permit us there to oppugn the truth and vvay of God, as they intitle their errours.

Thirdly, this evil being foūd in thēselves, that they doo not onely refuse & oppugn the truth offred; but forsake, speak evill of, and perse∣cute the truthe and vvay of God vvhich they had long imbraced & vvalked in: the judgement vvhich they give upon us, is most just upon their ovvn heads; by the sentence “ 2.71 of our Saviour. And vve could doo no less vvith these our merciless brethren, that vvould nourish no peace vvith us, unless eyther vve made shipvvrack of a

good conscience, or would consent to the undoing of our estates and families; but leave them as we did, by the Apostles warrant, for causing division and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which we had learned Rom. 16.17. If their new doctrines be good, I shal acknowledge we have greatly synned: but if they be the high way to Antichristian promotion, and a bereaving of the Church of her right & power, as we are verily perswaded, and doo trust we have so proved it; then have they given sentence against themselves, and except they repēt, their condemnation shalbe just.

Notwithstanding al their former reasons, they after allege, that they reversed not their agreement concerning such as would goe and live with the Church at Leyden, but onely about such as purposed to return and live here &c. I answer, by this al may judge whither the fear of God, or fleshly policie did more prevayl in them. For such of us as would have lived at Leyden, they pretend they could find warrant for it in Gods word, but shew none: they would let them there, refuse & speak evil of their pretended way of God, without leaving any thing to work vpon their consciences, &c. and yet have peace with them as Chris∣tian brethren. Onely at Amsterdam these things might not be suf∣fred. The Pope himself permitteth Iewes which never received his religion, to live in the same citie with him, where he is Prince: but these our adverse brethren, would not indure that wee, (though we never received their innovations,) should live in one city with them, where they were but strangers. What should we have found, if they had been Princes of the State? Secondly, they plainly rever∣sed the agreement, as before was shewed, & when some of our bre∣thren desired their testimonial, for to goe to Leyden, they refused to give it. And we could not tel before we came thither & tried, whether there would be meanes found for our living there or no. But strange and unheard of cruelty was in these men, that would bind us there to remain, though we and our families should be un∣doon; & being but strangers themselves in this city with us, would take upon them so imperiously to banish us the town, which the Lords of the city never offred. I wish they may find more mercie with the Lord at the day of Christ, then they have shewed unto us.

And wheras they object, that when we left them, we went not to Ley∣den, to ioyn our selves to that Church according to the agrement &c. I an∣swer, there never was such agreement, that of our selves we should

goe, but that by them we should be dismissed, and this they refu∣sed to doo, yea and publikly reversed the covenant that themselves had devised and twise confirmed: besides, that we of our own mind did never desire, but onely for peace sake consented to that agree∣ment, as before I shewed. Neyther was it ever agreed, that such onely as would remayn there, should goe: but it was general for us al. But these their cariages shew, what dominion such Elders would exercise over Gods heritage; and how unpossible it was for us to have peace with them, that would thus turn and wind, say and un∣say, agree of a thing to day, and break it to morow. Our sowles were wearied, with their turnings of devises.

Finally for our not remayning with them, til there was an answer of their Letter from Leyden, I answer, we taryed with them a good while after their foresayd letter, wheras we might upon their breaking of their own solemn agreement, added to al their former evils, justly have forsaken them. Neyther could the Church of Leyden (as it seemeth) tel what to advise us, and therfore gave no answer to their Letters, or to ours: and because they would have no hand in the breach between us, thought better to be silent; seing unto what ex∣tremitie things were brought. And the agreement between the Churches being disanulled, articles of warr and discord being pro∣claymed to us, and written of to them; delayes onely sought to work our dissipation: we know no vvord of God, that bindeth us to suffer our selves to come into such bondage, vvith men that day∣ly in their publick doctrines and prayers, inveighed aginst the truth they formerly professed, vvounded the consciences of the brethren, and sought al occasions to dravv men from the right vvay and prac∣tise of the Gospel. What should vve doo, but shake off the dust of our f••et against such authors of errours, and peace breakers? Al∣beit in these our great troubles and strayts, we doubt not but ma∣ny things through our ignorance and frayltie might be doon a∣myss; for vvhich vve have, and doo alvvayes humbly ask mercy of God, that even our secret synns may be forgiven us. And touch∣ing the Church of Leyden, vvhose help they refused to desire, or consent to hav•• d••sired, though novv for their advantage (as they think) they speak of them, and have printed some of the passages betvveen them: I have desired their Elders testimonie upon this occasion, that the ages present and to come, may have true infor∣mation of these matters; vvhich is as folovveth.

The testimonie of the Elders of the Church at Leyden.

THough we much rather desired to have been mediatours of the peace of our brethren, then witnesses of their strife: yet may we not, because that which we desired, could not not be effected by us, with draw from that, which both may, and ought by us to be doon. We therfore being desired therunto by Mr. Ainsworth, and occasioned by that which both Mr Iohnson and he have writtē, and taking the evils which have befallen others, as matter both of humbling, and warning to our selves, doo signify, what we know, and have found in our dealings thereabout.

And first, Our special ••alling to intermedle in this vncomfortable busynes, was a letter sent vnto vs by some 30. of the brethren there. In which, mentioning in the beginning of it, their long, and greevous cōtroversy, they signified how they had oft desired of the Church to re∣quest our help therin, and that the Elders would no way aporove therof: but would onely permitt our cōming, eyther of our selves, or at their request. Wherin they also certifyed vs, how some of them had char∣ged the exposition of these words Tell the Church, Mat. 18, 17. Tell the El∣ders, with some other particulars therupon depending, to be errour: and so were to prove their charge: and therfore earnestly requested us to help in that great busynes, that the truth might be mainteyned, and not by their weaknes injuried, and the innocent condemned: and that we would help the Lord against the mighty &c.

And the reason why they thus earnestly requested our help was, be∣cause M. Ainsworth was so sparing in opposing of Mr Iohnsons new doctrine (though alwayes misliking it) as they scarse knew how he was minded in the things: so loath was he to come to any profes∣sed, and publique opposition with him, whom he rather hoped to pa∣cify by moderation, then by opposition to stop in his intended course. Besides he was careful not to give any incouragement to the too vio∣lent oppositions of some brethren, though minded as they were, in the things themselves.

This their letter, and earnest request in it notwithstanding, we wēt not, but wrote to the Church and shewed them what the substance of the letter was; desiring by thē to be informed how things stood with them: and signifying withall, our vnwillingnes to interpose, but upon a dew, and necessary calling; and that also as much as might be, vn∣der the conditions of best hope of good yssue.

They, as before, denyed to approve of our cōming, and would one∣ly permit it, and that vnder the terms of jealousy, and advantage, as appears by that which themselves have published: and did oft, and

earnestly require of us a coppy of the letter before mētioned, with the names of the persons subscribed unto it. Which though we judged, and still do, an hard, and extream impositiō in it self, considering they themselves had permitted them to send unto vs, and knew from vs whereabout they wrote, and had not layd it vpon them to shew them their letter before they sent it; yet had we given way to their desires herein, had it not been for one phrase in the end of the letter, which be∣ing borrowed from Deborahs speach against Sisera, Iudg. 5, 23. and applyed as it was, might give offence, and minister occasion of fur∣ther strife, which phrase also we reproved in the wryters of the letter, and they acknowledged amiss; professing notwithstanding they had no evill meaning in it, but onely a desire to provoke vs the more effec∣tually to supply their inability against those with whom they had to deal. Now for our withholding the coppy of the letter (though since that tyme, for their importunity we sent it them) as also for our purpose of cōming unto them, and the ends therof, we will here insert what we wrote unto them in two severall letters thereabout,

For the former thus. If the letter wherof you desire a coppy, might further your cōmon peace, or procure good to any, wee should easily answer your desire: but if, on the contrary, there were the least evill in it, wee should hold it our duties to deal with the parties offending, our selves, and not to discover their sin. And loath would we be eyther to minister matter of further scanning amongst you, or that any regi∣ster of unkindnes should come unto you from our hands. And the fear of this was in truth the onely cause, why we refused to send this let∣ter, as they required. Wherin if we fayled, (as we see no cause so to think) yet was it the errour of our love, and great desire of their peace.

About our cōming we thus wrote. Our purpose therfore is, accor∣ding to the request of the brethren which have moved us, and our duty; to send, or come unto you; not to oppose any person, or to mainteyn any charge of errour, but by all other brotherly meanes to help forward your holy peace (if so the Lords will be:) which how precious it is unto us, we hope to manifest to the consciences of all men: then which we know nothing in this world we haue more cause to endeavour, both with God, and your selves. Of which our comming we pray you to accept, and to appoint us some such time, as seemes to you most convenient. Whereal∣so we shall satisfy you to the utmost, both touching the letter, and other particulars in all equity, yea so farr as we can without apparant sin.

These things notwithstanding, they would not approve, but onely permit of our comming, as men use to permit of that which is evill, and which in deed they could not hinder. And so we came vnto them: first of our selves, and afterwards at the request of M. Ainsworth, and them with him, being sent by the Church, wherof we are: and so in∣for••m•• our selves vpon them for the delivering of the Churches mes∣sage, did reprove what we judged evill in them, and that we confesse

with some vehemency. And in that regard it was, that (vpon the mo∣tion made by Mr. Iohnson for the free dismission of such mem∣bers with them, unto vs, as could not there walk with peace of con∣science,, there lying no other cause against them; which should also be mutually performed on our part) we signifyed (as he wryteth) that wee little thought they had been so inclinable to peace; & that if we had so thought, we would have caryed our selves otherweise towards them, then we did. And good cause had we so to speak. For neyther is the same cariage to be vsed towards men, prosecuting their purposes and perswasions, with all violence and extremity; and towards them, which manifest Christian moderation in the same: neyther had we be∣fore, or have we since found the like peaceable inclination in them, to that which they then manifested. Which how great greif it hath been vnto us, and how it hath even wounded our very harts, he onely kno∣weth, which seeth the sorrowes of the hearts of his servants, and put∣teth their teares in his bottel.

But to passe by these things, and to proceed. The motion made by Mr Iohnson for a peaceable dismission, was by the Church there received with generall assent; unto which the Church also at Leyden condiscended: and so sent back the Officers for the further rati∣fication of it, and for some other purposes tending to the establishing of peace amongst them. Wherupon it was also the second tyme by thē confirmed: alwayes in deed with submissiō to the word of God, as was meet: and that if eyther they, or we minded otherwise, we should so signify. Which notwithstanding they did not: but reversed the a∣grement of themselves, without acquainting vs with the change of their mind or reasons therof.

Afterwards indeed, they gave us knowledge of their purpose, as ap∣pears in their former letter by themselves published, desiring the con∣tinuance of our consideration about it, as if the thing which was fully agreed upon, as is aforesayd, and that oftener then once had been onely in consideration: and in their second letter (as also appeareth) they gave us certayn Reasons of their dislike.

Vnto which reasons of theirs we gave no answer (as they both write) before their parting. And the causes were. 1. For that they continued not long togither after they came to our hands. 2. We had upon occasion of the motion made for a double practise, propounded another course (both more fit, and warrantable, as we thought, then that) for the bringing of things first to the Elders, as appears in our letter. Vnto which course though we do not bind our brethren, yet may we safely say (so farr as we remember) that there never came complaynt of sin to the Church, since we were officers, but we took knowledge of it before: eyther by mutual consent on both sides, or at least by the party accused: with whose christian modesty, and wisdom we think it wel sorteth, that being condemned by two, or three brethrē,

he should not trouble the Church, or hazzard a publique rebuke upon himself; without counselling with them who ar set over him, and who eyther are, or should be best able to advise him.

Thirdly, and which was the cheif cause, we were without all hope of doing good, when they once misliked the motion, which made it. Whilest they liked it, we had hope, though it were with hard measure to the other, and so did further it, to the utmost of our power: but when they layd it down, we knew all our labour would be lost in endeavor∣ing their second listing of it.

Lastly where Mr Iohnson affirmeth, that at the first treating of the matter, we conceived that those by them dismissed should remayn at Leydē with us, notwithstanding their want of meanes of living, it may wel be as he sayth, though we well remember it not. And therin all men may see, how we were even overcaryed with a vehement de∣sire of peace with them, and amongst themselves, and how farr wee were from being partiall towards them with whom we agreed in the things in controversie. Yea the truth is, we were boldest with thē, both because we would prevent all jealousy in the other, and preserve in them all the interest we could for the common peace: and also be∣cause we were wel assured of Mr Ainsworths great moderation, upō whom the rest did much depend.

But howsoever we conceived at the first, it is certayn that both they, and we conceived otherwise in the agreement. And therfore when one amongst them made exception,* 3.1 that we should not dismisse thē back, which came unto us, to live a distinct congregation in the same city with them, it was presently answered both by Mr Iohnson, and Mr Studley, that that concerned not them, but that they would leave it unto us: though that appeared afterwards to be the onely thing for which they broke off their purpose, and promise. And here the work of Gods providence is to be observed, that they who would have no peace with their brethren abyding in the same city with them, are a∣bout to leave it themselves, and to settle their abode els where. Which thing, that it might well come to passe in short time, they were by us put in mind of before hand, if God gave them not agayne to reunite, which by a peaceable parting, might hav been furthered. Which how much better had it been they had admitted of, (all things considered) then, thorough extreme streytnes in themselves (not to medle with the mayn cause) thus to have made their brethren their adversaries, and themselves, yea and us all, a by-word to the whole world?

• ...Iohn Robinson.
• ...William Brewster.

This is the record of our brethren of Leyden, touching our trou∣bles. Wheras our opposites object unto us, that we refused to trie if by writing among our selves, we could have come to better accord &c. I an∣swer, first we had by a twelv moneths dispute tried if we could have come to accord; but were further off in the end, then at the begin∣ning Secondly things were brought to that pass, that the prac∣tise of their errours was established; the truth in publik doctrines inveighed against; the opposers of their errours, compared to Ko∣rah Dathan and Abiram; the Lords supper of a long time not ad∣ministred among us; occasions sought against sundry persons to cast them out of the Church; peace by us offred, by them refused; peace by them selves propounded and confirmed, and by them a∣gayn broken; open warr proclaymed against us, as against men that refused disobeyed and spake evil of the way and truth of God &c. was this an estate for us to continew in togither, and goe to writing, which would prove we knew not how many moneths or yeres work? For loe to a letter of mine of 3. pages, they have given an answer of 70. and if they continue thus to multiplie, what volumes shal we have in the end: and when shal vve have an end? It is rather to be feared that vve suffred things to depend too long: for vvhen the Apostles found Christians liberty to be indangered, and bondage to be brought upon them, though privily, they gave not place by sub∣jection for an howr, that the truth of the Gospel might continew with them, Gal. 2.4.5. Thirdly it vvas a vvay vvhich they alvvayes mislyked: and in our former troubles, vvhen heretofore M. Smyth and others, having debated their causes in conference, proffered vvritings: then M. Iohnson himself, vvith the rest, vvithstood and refused that course. But novv, that vvhich they blamed in others, they com∣mend in themselves: so partial are they in al things. When they like of a thing, it must be good: vvhen they mislike, it must be evil. We vvish they vvould shevv more sinceritie. And novv, as vve de∣sire the Christian reader, not to be offended at the truth, because of our infirmities who cannot walk in it as we ought; nor to stum∣ble for the troubles and dissentions which Satan rayseth among Gods people: so wee desire these our opposite brethren, to return into the right way, from which they are estrayed, and put∣ting away al love of preeminence, and of their own aberrations, to receiv agayn the love of the truth, and of brotherly concord: that

the name of God, be no more evil spoken of by the wicked, and that the harts which ar wounded by these dissentions, may be heal∣ed and refreshed. The Lord look upon the afflictions of Sion, wipe away her tears, forgive her iniquities, take away her reproch; restore her joy, and comfort her, according to the dayes that she hath seen evil. Amen.

Finis.

Notes

• “ 1.1

  Iudg, 11.13. &c.
• * 1.2

  1.
• † 1.3

  Lawnes book. pag. 78. 82.
• † 1.4

  pag. 17.
• † 1.5

  pag. 31.
• † 1.6

  Advertis. p. 27. &c.
• * 1.7

  Apol, p. 65.
• † 1.8

  Ier. 1.9.10
• ‘† 1.9

  1 Cor. 15 13, 14. &c.
• * 1.10

  pag. 73.
• “ 1.11

  pag. 62.63.
• * 1.12

  pag. 18.19
• “ 1.13

  Cōment in Tit. 1.5.
• † 1.14

  Euseb. l▪ 5. c. 26.
• * 1.15

  Discourse of troub. at Frankford. p. 11••. &c.
• * 1.16

  Advertis. p. 25.
• † 1.17

  Isa. 9.6.
• “ 1.18

  1. Tim. 5.17. 1. Cor. 12.28.
• ‘† 1.19

  Confes. art. 19.
• * 1.20

  Confess. art. 17.19.26.
• “ 1.21

  Conf. art. 22.23.24. Apol. p 46.47.60.62.
• † 1.22

  Advertis. p. 46.
• ‘† 1.23

  Act. 15.7.12.22.23.25 1. Cor. 5.1•• 13.
• “ 1.24

  D. Some. M. Giss. M. Bern.
• * 1.25

  Confess. art. 24. Apol. p. 62.63.
• † 1.26

  De Verbo Dei, lib. 3. c. 5.
• * 1.27

  De autor. eccles. cō∣tra Whita∣ker. l. 1. c. 1▪ S. 5.
• † 1.28

  Num. 16.9. 2. Chro. 35.3.
• * 1.29

  Ier. 26.10.
• * 1.30

  Eph. 2.11.12.
• “ 1.31

  Gal. 5.2.
• † 1.32

  Heb. 13.10.
• * 1.33

  Psal. 122.4 5.
• ‘† 1.34

  Dan. 9.24 26. Luk. 19.41.44.
• ؛؛ 1.35

  Ephe. 2.18
• † 1.36

  verse 15.
• * 1.37

  Heb. 3.2.
• ‘† 1.38

  Eph. 2.19
• † 1.39

  1. Cor. 3.10. &c.
• * 1.40

  Heb. 12.27.28.
• † 1.41

  Advertis. p. 32.33.
• * 1.42

  Plutarch. in Cat.
• † 1.43

  Rhem. an∣not. on Mat 23.2.
• “ 1.44

  De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1.
• † 1.45

  Bellar. de verb. Dei, l. 3. c. 4.
• ؛; 1.46

  Perpet. goverm. ch. 4.
• ‘† 1.47

  Prolect. de Rom. Pont. Con. 4. Q. 8. c. 2. •• 2.
• {punctel}; 1.48

  Animadv, ad contr. 1. l. 3. c. 4. et ad. cont. 3. l. 1, c. 2.
• * 1.49

  T. C. 2. Repl. p. 614
• “ 1.50

  De Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 9.
• ؛; 1.51

  Animad. in Bellar. ibid.
• * 1.52

  Iosh. 23.2.
• † 1.53

  Deut. 16.18.
• ‘† 1.54

  ••almud Babylon. tract. San∣hedrin, c. 1.
• ‘* 1.55

  Deut. 16.18.
• “ 1.56

  Maimon. in Sanhe∣drin, c. 1.
• * 1.57

  Deut. 17.8 9.2. Chrō. 19.8.
• * 1.58

  Talm. ibidem.
• * 1.59

  Num. 11.••4. &c.
• * 1.60

  Maimon, ibidē.
• * 1.61

  Ibidē.
• ‘† 1.62

  Maimō. Sanhedrin. chapt. 15.
• ‘*’ 1.63

  Talmud Sanhedr. c. 1.
• * 1.64

  1. Chron. 23. & 24. &. 25. & 26. chapt.
• ‘† 1.65

  Act. 15.21.
• * 1.66

  Act. 24.12.
• * 1.67

  Mat. 5.22.
• † 1.68

  Talmud Bab. tract. Sanhedrin. c. 1.
• “ 1.69

  Exod. 18.22. Deut. 17.8.9.
• ‘† 1.70

  verse 21.
• ‘* 1.71

  Exod. 21.12.
• * 1.72

  Mat. 5.22.
• a 1.73

  verse 25.
• b 1.74

  Mat. 18.17.18.
• c 1.75

  verse 18.
• d 1.76

  verse 17.
• e 1.77

  1. Cor. 5.4.5.12.
• * 1.78

  Luk. 4.20.
• f 1.79

  Mat. 18.20.
• g 1.80

  In their Treat. on Mat. 18.
• * 1.81

  Heb. 8.8.
• † 1.82

  Heb. 7.12.
• “ 1.83

  Advert. pag. 33.
• * 1.84

  verse 3.6. &c.
• † 1.85

  Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 5. c. 8.
• * 1.86

  Num. 5.2.
• ‘* 1.87

  1. Cor. 5.12.13.
• a 1.88

  Mich. 3.11.
• b 1.89

  Zeph. 3.3 4. Isa. 1.23.
• c 1.90

  Levit. 20.2.4.
• d 1.91

  Exod. 23.2.7.
• e 1.92

  1 King. 21.12·13.
• f 1.93

  Ier. 26.11.12.16.
• g 1.94

  1. Sam. 14.39.44.45.
• ‘†’ 1.95

  Luk. 23.24.
• ‘*’ 1.96

  Ioh. 19.23.34.
• “ 1.97

  vers. 38.— 43.
• ‘* 1.98

  Num. 19.11.
• † 1.99

  pag. 19.
• * 1.100

  ibid. p. 20.
• “ 1.101

  ibid. p. 26
• † 1.102

  Act. 5.26.
• † 1.103

  Advert. pag. 34.
• * 1.104

  Deut. 17.8 9. 2. Chrō. 19.8.10.
• * 1.105

  pag. 16.
• † 1.106

  Zeph. 3.3.
• * 1.107

  Isa. 2••.2••.
• ‘*’ 1.108

  Num. 18.
• † 1.109

  Luk. 4.20
• ‘†’ 1.110

  Deut. 16 1••.
• ‘*’ 1.111

  pag. 16.
• ‘†’ 1.112

  pag. 10.
• ‘*’ 1.113

  Mat. 28.20.
• “ 1.114

  Rō. 13.1.
• ‘†’ 1.115

  1. pet. 2.13.
• * 1.116

  Ier. 33.21.22.
• ‘*’ 1.117

  Rev. 1.6.
• ‘*’ 1.118

  Heb. 13.17.
• † 1.119

  Heb. 8.8.9. &c.
• * 1.120

  Gal. 4.2, 3.
• “ 1.121

  Levit. 18.5.
• a 1.122

  Gal. 3.12.
• b 1.123

  Heb. 8 9.
• c 1.124

  Rom 8.3
• d 1.125

  Gal. 3.23 24.
• e 1.126

  Heb. 7.11.19.
• † 1.127

  Maimon. in Treat. of the dis∣cipline of the law; ch. 3.
• * 1.128

  Ioh. 2.27.
• * 1.129

  1. Cor. 5.4 5.
• “ 1.130

  1. Cor. 4.1.
• † 1.131

  Isa. 61.6. 1. Pet. 4.10 11. 1. Cor. 14, 31. Act. 13.2.
• * 1.132

  Ioh. 3.29. 1. Cor. 3.22 23.
• “ 1.133

  so caled, Iam. 2.2.
• “ 1.134

  Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 1. c. 5.
• † 1.135

  ibid. c. 6.
• * 1.136

  Exo. 19.6. 1. Pet. 2.9.
• † 1.137

  Heb. 13.17.
• “ 1.138

  Colos. 4.17.
• ؛ † 1.139

  Isa. 61.5.6
• † 1.140

  Eph. 4.11. 1. Cor. 3.9.
• * 1.141

  1. Pet. 2.9. Rev. 20.6.
• ‘* 1.142

  p. 14.15.
• a 1.143

  Gen. 14.18.
• b 1.144

  2 Chron. 26.18.
• c 1.145

  Deut. 17.14. 1. Sam. 8.
• d 1.146

  Ier. 27.6.8.12.
• e 1.147

  Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1.
• f 1.148

  Heb. 3.2.
• * 1.149

  Nū. 3.6.32 Nehem. 12 7.12.
• † 1.150

  2. Chron. 10.8.10.
• ‘* 1.151

  1. Chro. 27.5.1. Kin. 2.34.35.
• ‘† 1.152

  Pag. 242.243.
• “ 1.153

  p. 75. — 81.
• ‘* 1.154

  p. 60.—64
• ؛* 1.155

  p. 61.74.
• ؛† 1.156

  p. 55.56▪
• * 1.157

  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.
• † 1.158

  Math. 20.25.26. 1. Pet. 5.3.
• ‘* 1.159

  Heb. 5.4. & 9.6.7. & 13.11.12.
• ‘† 1.160

  Heb. 7.1••.12.••5.
• † 1.161

  vers. 35.
• * 1.162

  vers. 36.
• †’ 1.163

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 19.
• † 1.164

  Exod. 23.7
• * 1.165

  Isa. 1.23. 1. Sam. 8.3. Zeph. 3.3.
• † 1.166

  Exod. 19.7.
• * 1.167

  Luk. 22.10 11.12. &c.
• † 1.168

  1. Cor. 11 20. &c.
• * 1.169

  Ruth. 4.2.
• † 1.170

  Act. 21.18
• * 1.171

  Levit. 14.14.
• † 1.172

  Heb. 1.4.5
• * 1.173

  Iob. 1.6. & 2.1.
• † 1.174

  Deut. 14.1.
• * 1.175

  Isa. 65 17 & 66.22. 2. Cor. 5.17.
• † 1.176

  Heb. 12.26.27.
• †’ 1.177

  Mat. 18, 2.
• † 1.178

  vers. 3, 4.
• ؛* 1.179

  v. 7.
• ‘.’ 1.180

  v. 8.
• * 1.181

  v. 15. &c.
• ‘{inverted †}’ 1.182

  v. 18.
• *’ 1.183

  v. 20.
• * 1.184

  p. 17.18.
• † 1.185

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.186

  Dan. 9, 26. Isa. 65, 17. Heb. 8. & 9 & 10. chap.
• † 1.187

  Ioh. 19.15
• ‘.’ 1.188

  Mat. 24.2
• “ 1.189

  Eph. 4.11 1. Cor. 12.
• * 1.190

  1. Cor. 11.20.—33.
• † 1.191

  1. Cor. 5.4.—13.
• ‘* 1.192

  vers. 1.2.
• “ 1.193

  Act. 15.23 25.
• †’ 1.194

  Tertull. in Apolo∣get.
• a 1.195

  Cypr. l. 3. epist. 14.
• b 1.196

  apud plebē uni∣versā.
• c 1.197

  ibid. epist 10.
• † 1.198

  Act. 6.4.
• * 1.199

  Deut. 13.11. & 17.13.
• ‘.’ 1.200

  1. Cor. 14.34.
• ‘؛’ 1.201

  Iustisic. p. 204.205.206.
• † 1.202

  Adver••. p. 46.
• * 1.203

  D. Cou∣sins, answ. to the ab∣stract. p. 99▪ 100.
• * 1.204

  Deut. 13 9 10.
• † 1.205

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 19.
• “ 1.206

  Advertis. pag. 34.
• * 1.207

  pag. 8.9.
• † 1.208

  Aristot. in reprehens. Sophist.
• * 1.209

  vers. 4▪ 5.6.
• “ 1.210

  vers. 7.
• * 1.211

  vers. 8 &c.
• † 1.212

  vers. 28.
• * 1.213

  1. Cor. 5.7 12.
• a 1.214

  Iam. 3.2.
• b 1.215

  Gal. 6.1. Ephe. 4.12. —16.
• † 1.216

  Cor. 5.12
• * 1.217

  1. Cor. 14.23.24.
• ;؛; 1.218

  Ios. 7.25.
• † 1.219

  1. Cor. 12.7.
• “ 1.220

  verse 13.
• ‘† 1.221

  vers. 26.
• ‘* 1.222

  Act. 25.22.—25.
• † 1.223

  Isa. 8.20.
• * 1.224

  Exod. 23.2
• ؛;؛ 1.225

  Gal. 1.8.
• ‘†’ 1.226

  Act. 17.11.
• a 1.227

  2 King. 3.4. Isa. 16.1. 2. Sam. 8.2.
• b 1.228

  Ier. 3.8. Ilos. 4.15. 1. King. 12.19. & 15.9.16.17. &c. 2 Chron. 10 16, 17. &c.
• c 1.229

  Ps. 7▪3.1. & 125.5. Gal. 6.16. Rō. 9.4.6.
• † 1.230

  2. Chron. 11.16.
• * 1.231

  In their Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25.
• † 1.232

  Act. 20.2•• 30.
• † 1.233

  p. 28.40.
• † 1.234

  Mat-26.3 4. & 27.1. &c.
• † 1.235

  Mat. 20.25 26.
• * 1.236

  2. Chron. 19.5.6.
• ؛؛; 1.237

  Plato de repub. l. 4. & 5.
• ‘† 1.238

  Aristot. 3. Pol. c. 11.
• ؛; 1.239

  p. 41.
• * 1.240

  Psal. 119.99.100.
• a 1.241

  Mat. 15.14
• b 1.242

  Isa. 56.11
• c 1.243

  1. Cor. 12
• d 1.244

  verse 21.
• † 1.245

  verse 25.
• * 1.246

  1. Sā. 9.9.
• “ 1.247

  Lā. 2.14.
• “ 1.248

  2. Sam. 17.
• a 1.249

  Eccles. 9.13 14. &c.
• b 1.250

  2. Sam. 20 16. &c.
• c 1.251

  verse 22.
• d 1.252

  De sacra∣ment▪ in gen. l. 1. c. 25.
• e 1.253

  pag. 41.
• † 1.254

  1. Cor. 11.18.33.
• * 1.255

  1. Cor. 5.4 5.
• ؛’ 1.256

  Exod. 23.7.
• ‘† 1.257

  1. Tim. 5.22.
• * 1.258

  3. Ioh. 9.1••.
• * 1.259

  1. Tim. 5.17.18.
• * 1.260

  Luk. 12.14
• † 1.261

  Rom. 13.
• “ 1.262

  1. Cor. 6.4.5.
• ‘* 1.263

  Mal. 2.7.
• ‘† 1.264

  Act. 21.18.
• * 1.265

  Exo. 20.10
• ‘†’ 1.266

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 17.
• * 1.267

  R. Ios. Ka∣ro, in Cho∣shen ••a∣mishpat, tract. de Iu∣di••. ch. 5.
• † 1.268

  Maimony Tract. San∣hedrin, ch. ••1.
• * 1.269

  1. Cor. 6 4.
• “ 1.270

  Exod. 20.••.
• a 1.271

  Ioh. 7.23.
• b 1.272

  Num. 28.9. with Le∣vit. 1.
• c 1.273

  Mat. 12.5
• d 1.274

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26.
• e 1.275

  Luk. 13.15.16.
• f 1.276

  Psal. 41.4
• g 1.277

  Mat. 12.11.12.
• h 1.278

  Iam. 5.20
• i 1.279

  1. Cor. 7.2••.
• * 1.280

  Treat. of the Minist. of Engl. p. 62. Apol. p. 63.
• * 1.281

  Advertis. p 45. Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 23.
• * 1.282

  Discov. p. 46.242, 243 Treat. of the Minist. p. 62.63.64
• † 1.283

  Ioh. 15.1.2.3.4.
• * 1.284

  Io••. 18.36
• * 1.285

  In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 24.
• † 1.286

  1. Tim. 6.20.
• a 1.287

  Treat. of the minist. against M. Hilders. p. 63.64.
• b 1.288

  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.
• d 1.289

  1. Pet. 2.6.
• c 1.290

  Mat. 18.19.20.
• “ 1.291

  verse 7. Ioh. 6.35.
• a 1.292

  Ier. 50.5. & 32.40. & 31 33.34. Act. 2.47. & 5.13.
• b 1.293

  1. Cor. 3.9, 10. &c.
• c 1.294

  Psal. 118.22, 23. Mat. 21.42.
• d 1.295

  1. Pet. 2.4.7.
• † 1.296

  verse ••.
• * 1.297

  Heb. 3.6.
• * 1.298

  Rev. 2.1.
• † 1.299

  Mat. 28.20
• f 1.300

  Mat. 19.8.
• a 1.301

  Eph. 4.4.5. 1. Cor. 10.1.2. & 12, 13.
• * 1.302

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26.
• † 1.303

  Ioh. 3, 21.
• “ 1.304

  Deut. 29.10,—••3.
• ‘† 1.305

  Ios. 5.4.5
• * 1.306

  Act. 20.29
• † 1.307

  Ioh. 3.27. Heb. 5.4.
• ‘* 1.308

  Mat. 15.13.
• * 1.309

  Confess. art. 23. & 3•• Apolog. p. 46, 47.
• * 1.310

  Advertis. p. 47.
• † 1.311

  Deut. 16.18.
• * 1.312

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25.
• † 1.313

  Advertis. p. ••8.
• * 1.314

  Apol. p. 48.
• * 1.315

  Num. 8.9.10.
• † 1.316

  1. Ioh. 2.18.19.
• * 1.317

  Num. 8.7.9.
• † 1.318

  vers. 10.
• † 1.319

  Num. 15.24.25.
• † 1.320

  Act. 14. Tit. 1.
• ‘* 1.321

  Rō. 13.1.
• ‘† 1.322

  Iob. 12.24.
• “ 1.323

  Act. 25.11
• *’ 1.324

  Eph. 1.22
• * 1.325

  Ioh. 18.36
• † 1.326

  Mat. 26.52
• “ 1.327

  Luk. 12.14.
• *’ 1.328

  2 Chrō. 26.16, 18.
• a 1.329

  Ier. 27.6..8.12.
• b 1.330

  Ier. 40.5.
• c 1.331

  Ier. 29.22 23.
• d 1.332

  Ier. 29.7.
• * 1.333

  1. Cor. 14.40.
• † 1.334

  Num. 8.10.
• †† 1.335

  Chron. 29, 23.
• * 1.336

  Exod. 10.9. & 17.5. Lev. 19.32. Ezr. 3, 12. Ioel. 2.16.28. Prov. 20 29. 1. King. 12.6.8.
• † 1.337

  vers. 8.
• * 1.338

  verse 12.
• “ 1.339

  verse 15, 16.18.
• † 1.340

  vers. 22. &c.
• † 1.341

  Pro. 26, 26
• * 1.342

  In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 7.
• ‡ 1.343

  2 Chr. 30.24. & 31.18 Exod. 12, 6. Ier. 31, 8. Ezek. 17.17 & 23.46,
• † 1.344

  2. Thes. 2 8.
• * 1.345

  pag. 210.
• † 1.346

  De Rom. Pont. l. 1.••.6.
• * 1.347

  Cōfes. art. 21.
• a 1.348

  Apol. p. 108.109.110.111.112.
• b 1.349

  Advertis. p. 54.55.
• c 1.350

  Confess. art. 29.30. & in many treatises.
• d 1.351

  1. Macc. 1.12.16.
• * 1.352

  Bellarm. l. de sacr. or∣dinis. c. 2.
• † 1.353

  Ibid. c. 5.
• a 1.354

  Ibid. c. 11 & 9.
• b 1.355

  Bellarm. ibid. Pon∣tisical. lib. de ordinat. presbyt.
• c 1.356

  Bellarm. ibid. c. 10.
• d 1.357

  Ibid. c. 5.
• e 1.358

  Sess. 23. can. 4.
• f 1.359

  Rev. 13, 16
• g 1.360

  Treat. of the Minist. p. 98.—105.
• h 1.361

  Answer to M. Iakob in pref. sec. 6.
• a 1.362

  Pontific. de cōscer. elect. in e∣pisc.
• b 1.363

  Heb. 5, 4.
• c 1.364

  Rev. 16.13, 14.
• d 1.365

  2. King. ••3.5. Zeph. 1, 4.
• g 1.366

  Treat. of the Minist. p. 89.
• * 1.367

  1. Cor. 1•• 5.28.
• † 1.368

  Heb. 5, ••.
• a 1.369

  Apol. p. 46, 47—54. Reasons & arg. against spiritual cō¦munion with the Minist. of England, the whole book.
• b 1.370

  1. Ioh. 1.6.7.
• c 1.371

  Ex Calvi∣ni opusc. Form. cōf. cui se ad∣string. &c.
• d 1.372

  Sess. 23. can. 6.
• e 1.373

  Answer to art. 13.
• f 1.374

  Answ. to M. Iakob. p. 122.
• * 1.375

  Isa. 29.1••
• † 1.376

  Treat. of the Minist. p. 122.
• * 1.377

  Iob. 14.4.
• “ 1.378

  Ioh. 3.27.
• a 1.379

  Bell. de Rom. pont. l. 4. c. 14.
• b 1.380

  Platina in Steph. 2. Rom. & Th••od. 2.
• c 1.381

  Platinain Ioh. 8.
• d 1.382

  Ioh. Ma••ij de schism. & Concil. c. 13.
• e 1.383

  Rom, 11.
• f 1.384

  Sext. decr l. 5. tit. 9. c. 5 in glossa.
• g 1.385

  Ibid. l. 3. tit. 16. c. u∣nico, in gl.
• h 1.386

  2. Thes. 2.4.
• i 1.387

  Matth. Pa¦risiens. in vita Iohan▪ regis.
• * 1.388

  2. Thes. 2.8.
• * 1.389

  Apolog. p. 113.
• “ 1.390

  Advertis. p. 54.
• a 1.391

  Bellarm. de sac bap. l. 1. c. ••5.
• b 1.392

  B••llarm. de imag. l. 2. c. 29.
• c 1.393

  Bell. de bapt. l. 1. c. 2••.
• d 1.394

  Bell. ibid
• * 1.395

  Bellarmin. ibid. c. 26.
• * 1.396

  Bellarm. ibid. c. 27.
• ‘* 1.397

  Bellar. de de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 3
• f 1.398

  Bell. de bapt. l. 1. c. 13.
• g 1.399

  Concil. Trident. ses. 7. de sacr. in Gē. can. 8.
• † 1.400

  Bell. de bapt. l. 2. c. 7. & l. 1. c. 25.
• h 1.401

  Advert. p. 54.
• i 1.402

  Ioh. 1.17. Heb. 10, 10, 14. 1. Ioh. 1.7.
• k 1.403

  Act. 22.16 Rom. 4, 11. & 6, 3, 4. 1. Cor. 12, 13.
• l 1.404

  2 Thes. 2, 4— 12. Rev. 14, 9, 10.
• m 1.405

  2 Chro. 30, 1. &c. Ezr. 6, 21,
• a 1.406

  Arrow a∣gainst Idol. c. 5.
• b 1.407

  2. Chro. 15.3.
• c 1.408

  Ier. 3.8.
• d 1.409

  Hos. 2.2.
• e 1.410

  Hos. 13.1
• f 1.411

  Numb. 23, 1. Pom∣pon. 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.
• a 1.412

  Discov. p. 116. &c.
• b 1.413

  Mat. 3.11 1. Cor. 12.13. 1. Pet. 3, 21.
• c 1.414

  Apol p. 110—113.
• d 1.415

  Epist. l. 1 epist. 12.
• † 1.416

  1. King. 12 28.
• * 1.417

  2 King. 18 4.
• “ 1.418

  Isa. 44, 20
• * 1.419

  1. Cor. 8.••.
• a 1.420

  Num. 21.8.9.
• b 1.421

  Ioh. 3.14 15.
• c 1.422

  2. King, 18, 4.
• d 1.423

  Warning against I∣dolat. p. 33.
• e 1.424

  Missal. re∣format. de benedict. fontis.
• f 1.425

  Ibid. p. 18 —20.
• g 1.426

  Answ. to Mr Iakob. p. 120.
• h 1.427

  Apol. pa. 112.113.
• i 1.428

  Treat. of the Minist. p. 15.
• k 1.429

  2 Cor. 6.15·
• m 1.430

  frō Mat. 28.19.
• n 1.431

  frō Mat. 26.26.
• a 1.432

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 26.
• d 1.433

  Advert. p. 46.
• b 1.434

  Harding. confut. of the Apol. part. 2. c. 5.
• c 1.435

  Ibidem part. 5. c. 15.
• d 1.436

  Constit. & can. ec∣cles. 1603.
• e 1.437

  Treat. of the minist. of Engl. p. 17.
• a 1.438

  Mat. 18.17.
• b 1.439

  Artic. of religion, 33
• c 1.440

  M. Iohns. his Treat. of the Mi∣nist. of Eng. p. 60, 62.
• d 1.441

  Mat, 3.7.
• f 1.442

  Treat. of the Minist. p. 91.
• g 1.443

  Herodot. in Euterpe.
• h 1.444

  In Answ. to Mr Ia∣kob. p. 68.
• l 1.445

  Maimo∣nie, tract. de circum∣cis. c. 2.
• a 1.446

  In answ. to M. Ia∣kob. pref. sect. 6.
• b 1.447

  Advert. p. 58, 59.
• c 1.448

  Rev. 13, 11.
• d 1.449

  Dan. 7.23
• e 1.450

  Rev. 11.8
• f 1.451

  Rev. 13.11.
• g 1.452

  Rev. 21, 2
• h 1.453

  2 Thes. 2.3.
• i 1.454

  Rev. 17, 1.
• k 1.455

  Rev. 9.11
• l 1.456

  2 Thes. 2.3
• m 1.457

  verse 12.
• n 1.458

  Rev. 17.14.6. & 13 7.
• o 1.459

  verse 6.
• p 1.460

  Phil. 3, 20
• q 1.461

  Rev. 13, 11.
• r 1.462

  Rev-17.4.
• s 1.463

  Psal. 45, 9 13. Ezek. 16 10.—13. Song. ••, 5.
• t 1.464

  Prov. 7.14.
• u 1.465

  psal. 66.13.
• w 1.466

  Prov. 9.16, 17.
• x 1.467

  Prov. 5.3 1. Tim. 4.2.
• y 1.468

  2. Thes. 2.9. Rev. 13, 13.14.
• z 1.469

  Prov. 7.21.26. Rev. 17, 2. & 18, 23.
• * 1.470

  Mat. 24, 24.
• † 1.471

  Rev. 13, 5. & 1••.7. & 20, 2, 4.
• “ 1.472

  Rev. 18.19.21. & 19.20.21. 2. Thes. 2.8.
• ‘* 1.473

  Rev. 18.20. & 19.1.2.
• n 1.474

  Rev. 13.11.
• o 1.475

  Bellarm. pref. in ll. de summo Pont.
• p 1.476

  Extra. com. l. 1. de major. & obed. c. vnā sanctā.
• q 1.477

  Bell. pref. in ll. de membr. ec∣cles. milit.
• r 1.478

  Bellarm. de purg. l. 2 c. 1.
• s 1.479

  Bell. de Sanct. beat. l. 1. c. 7.8. &c.
• † 1.480

  Idem d•• eccles. m••lit. l. 3. c. 14.
• t 1.481

  Test. Rhē. in 1. Tim. 3 s. 9.
• u 1.482

  Bell. ibid.
• w 1.483

  Bell. de Rō. Pont. l. 4. c. 14.
• y 1.484

  Rev. 2, 9. & 3, 9.
• z 1.485

  2. Thes. 2.4.
• a 1.486

  Augustin. de civit. Dei. l. 20. c. 19.
• b 1.487

  2 Thes. 2, 4.
• c 1.488

  Bellar. de Pont. l. 2. c. 31.
• d 1.489

  Ioh. 3, 21.
• e 1.490

  Heb. 4, 14
• f 1.491

  Steph. Pa¦tracens. in orat. in Cō∣cil. Laterā. sub Leon. 10.
• g 1.492

  Rev. 11, 8.9.
• h 1.493

  Deut. 16.16.
• i 1.494

  1. King. 8, 41.42, Ioh. 12, 20. Act. 8, 27.
• k 1.495

  Rev. 13, 4
• l 1.496

  2. Cor. 11.14.
• m 1.497

  1. King. 8, 30.33, 35 &c.
• n 1.498

  Exo. 25, 8.
• o 1.499

  2 Chron. 6, 2.
• p 1.500

  Ezek. 37, 26, 27.
• ‘p 1.501

  Eph. 3.17. & 2.22. 1. Cor. 3.16
• q 1.502

  Rev. 13.4 14. & 16, 14. 1. Tim. 4.1. 2 Thes. 2.10.11.12.
• r 1.503

  2 Thes. 2.4.
• s 1.504

  Rev. 14.1.17.
• t 1.505

  Rev. 16.17. & 7.15.
• u 1.506

  Rev. 11.19. Isa. 29.6
• w 1.507

  Rev. 16.1 2.10.
• x 1.508

  Rev. 17, 8
• y 1.509

  Rev. 13, 6
• z 1.510

  Rev. 16.19.
• a 1.511

  Rev. 13, 2.
• b 1.512

  Rev. 19.19.
• c 1.513

  Rev. 11.2
• d 1.514

  Dan. 8.11
• e 1.515

  Psal. 79. Dan. 8.11.13. & 11.36. Ier. 52, 12.13. &c. Lam. 2, 7, 9·
• f 1.516

  Ezek. 28.2.6. Isa. 14.13.14. 2. Thes. 2.9.10. Rev 13.11.14. & 17.4. 2. Cor. 11.13.14.15.
• g 1.517

  Clemēt. in proaem. in glossa. c. In Con∣cil. Laterā. sess. 4. sub Leon. 10.
• i 1.518

  Extravag. in Ioh. 22.
• l 1.519

  Paulus Ae∣myl. lib. 7.
• k 1.520

  Cum in∣ter, in glo••.
• f 1.521

  p. 70.
• k 1.522

  Answer to M. Iak. p. 137.
• a 1.523

  Ier. 50, 6.
• b 1.524

  Ier. 50.17
• c 1.525

  Ier. 52, 13.14.
• d 1.526

  vers. 9. &c.
• e 1.527

  vers. 17. &c.
• f 1.528

  Ezek. 11, 16.
• g 1.529

  Dan. 1.1.2.
• h 1.530

  Rom. 11.4.5.7.
• i 1.531

  Ier. 51.25, 26, 37, 62.
• k 1.532

  Rev. 18, 2. & 11, 8.
• l 1.533

  2 Thes. 2.8 12. Rev. 18.8.—21.
• m 1.534

  2. Cor. 6.17.18.
• n 1.535

  Rev. 16, 19. & 18, 2.
• o 1.536

  vers. 4.
• p 1.537

  Rev.11, 2.9.18.
• q 1.538

  Defence against Mr Smyth, p. 14, 15.
• r 1.539

  1. Sā. 30, 5
• s 1.540

  Mat. 1.6.
• t 1.541

  Mat. 26, 6.
• u 1.542

  Hos. 2.7.
• w 1.543

  Hos. 1.9. & 2.2.
• x 1.544

  2. Chro. 15.3.
• y 1.545

  Mic. 2.7.8
• z 1.546

  Hos. 2, 18 19.
• a 1.547

  vers. 20.
• † 1.548

  vers. 23.
• b 1.549

  Hos. 11, 12.
• c 1.550

  Hos. 8.14
• d 1.551

  1. King. 12.28.
• e 1.552

  2 Chron. 11.15.
• f 1.553

  Deut. 32.1••. 2 Chr. 13.8.9.
• g 1.554

  Ezek. 23.4.
• h 1.555

  Ier. 51.44.
• i 1.556

  Rev. 17.5.
• k 1.557

  Rev. 18.2.
• l 1.558

  Rev. 16.19
• m 1.559

  Rev. 11.8
• n 1.560

  Mat. 27.2
• o 1.561

  Mat. 20.19.
• p 1.562

  Mat. 27, 27.—35.
• q 1.563

  Rev. 17.4
• r 1.564

  Rev. 13, 11 2.
• s 1.565

  1. Tim. 5.22.
• t 1.566

  2. Thes. 2.3.
• u 1.567

  Rev. 13, 11
• w 1.568

  Dā. 7.23
• x 1.569

  Treat. of the Minist. against. M. Hilders. p. 7. Apolog. p. 109.
• y 1.570

  Tit. 1.15.
• z 1.571

  Prov. 15.8.
• a 1.572

  Ps. 109, 7.
• b 1.573

  Revel. 11.2.8. & 17.5.
• c 1.574

  Rom. 1.7.
• d 1.575

  Rev. 17.8.18.
• e 1.576

  Pag. 77.
• f 1.577

  2 Thes. 2.
• g 1.578

  Rom. 1.7. & 12.1.
• h 1.579

  Rev. 18.2
• i 1.580

  Rev. 9.20.
• k 1.581

  2. Thes. 2.7.
• l 1.582

  1 Ioh. 2.18.19.
• m 1.583

  Rev. 2.5.16.
• n 1.584

  Rom. 11.20—22.
• o 1.585

  Rev. 13.11.
• p 1.586

  2 King. 17 & 25. cha.
• q 1.587

  2 Thes. 2.3.
• r 1.588

  ver. 10. &c.
• † 1.589

  Rev. 8, 8.
• “ 1.590

  Ier. 51, 25
• * 1.591

  Rev. 17.15 Isa. 17, 12.
• “ 1.592

  Rev. 20, 4 4, 5.
• a 1.593

  Isa. 1.10.
• b 1.594

  Rev. 11.8
• c 1.595

  Hos. 8.14.
• d 1.596

  Horat. l. 2 Satyr. 3.
• e 1.597

  Nū. 23.1.
• f 1.598

  Gen. 8.20. Levit. 1.
• g 1.599

  Act. 17.23.
• h 1.600

  Sopho••l. Electr. Ti∣bull. l. 1. cleg. 3.
• i 1.601

  Nū. 28, 11
• k 1.602

  2 Cor. 11.14.
• a 1.603

  Rom. 10.5.
• b 1.604

  Gal. 3, 10.
• c 1.605

  Ioh. 3.36.
• d 1.606

  Levit. 26, Deut. 28.
• e 1.607

  Levit. 26, 15.
• f 1.608

  Zach. 11, 10. Psal. 89.39.
• g 1.609

  1. Ioh. 3, 6.
• h 1.610

  Deut. 29, 18, 19, 20.
• i 1.611

  Pet. 3, 20. Gen. 6.
• k 1.612

  Rom. 2, 4, 5.
• l 1.613

  1. Cor. 10 6, 11.
• m 1.614

  Exod. 6, 4.5.—8.
• n 1.615

  Heb. 4.1.2.3. &c.
• o 1.616

  Deut. 1, 20, 21.
• p 1.617

  ver. 28, 26 32.
• q 1.618

  vers. 34.35.
• r 1.619

  verse 41.
• s 1.620

  ver. 42, 44.
• t 1.621

  Deut. 2, 1, &c. Heb. 3 17.—19.
• u 1.622

  Exod. 34, 10, 11.
• w 1.623

  verse 12, &c.
• x 1.624

  Iudg. 1.27.28.30.32, 33.
• y 1.625

  Iudg. 2.1.2.3.
• z 1.626

  verse 20, 21.
• a 1.627

  Iosh. 23, 13.
• b 1.628

  Deut. 31.16, 17.
• c 1.629

  verse 39, 40.
• d 1.630

  Pro. 28, 13.
• e 1.631

  Rev. 2, 21
• f 1.632

  Luk. 13.3.5. Rom. 2..4, 5. Rev. 2.5.
• g 1.633

  Mat. 7, 22 23.
• a 1.634

  Ier. 33.21 22.
• b 1.635

  Psal. 132.13.14.
• c 1.636

  Hos. 8.14 11.
• d 1.637

  2 Chron. 11.15.
• e 1.638

  1 King. 13.1. &c.
• f 1.639

  ver. 8.9.
• g 1.640

  ver. 26.
• h 1.641

  2 Chron. 11.13.16.
• i 1.642

  Hos. 4.15.17.
• k 1.643

  Hos. 2.2.
• l 1.644

  2 Chron. 15.3.
• m 1.645

  Amos 9.7.
• n 1.646

  2 King. 14.27.
• o 1.647

  Lev. 26.16.18.21.24.28.33
• p 1.648

  ver. 41.39.40.
• q 1.649

  ver. 42.45.
• r 1.650

  2 King. 17 13.14. &c.
• s 1.651

  Hos. 11.12.
• a 1.652

  Rom. 3.30.
• b 1.653

  Rom. 5.17.
• c 1.654

  2 King. 17.13.14. —22.23.
• d 1.655

  Act. 14.15. & 17.30.
• e 1.656

  2 Chron. 25.7.
• f 1.657

  Hos. 5.6.
• g 1.658

  Num. 14.42.
• h 1.659

  vers. 44.45.
• i 1.660

  Iudg. 2.18.
• k 1.661

  Psal. 118.6.
• l 1.662

  Mat. 28.20.
• m 1.663

  2 Chron. 15.2.
• n 1.664

  2 Chron. 15.3.
• o 1.665

  vers. 4.
• † 1.666

  Hos. 2, 2.
• * 1.667

  Ier. 3, 8.
• “ 1.668

  p. 81, 82.
• † 1.669

  Hos. 1, 9.
• * 1.670

  Rom. 11.28.
• “ 1.671

  verse 26, 27. Levit. 26, 45.
• ‘† 1.672

  Deut. 32, 43. Isa. 49.13.
• ‘* 1.673

  Ier. 50.4, 5.
• ‘؛ 1.674

  verse 20.
• † 1.675

  Hos. 2, 7.
• * 1.676

  verse 20.
• * 1.677

  Rev. 17, 18
• † 1.678

  Psal. 87, 4
• * 1.679

  1. Pet. 5, 13
• ‘† 1.680

  Num. 24 24. Rev. 14 9, 10. & 18 8.21. & 19, 20, 21. 2. Th 2.8.12.
• a’ 1.681

  2. Chron. 13, 4, 5.—12
• b 1.682

  verse 17.18.
• c 1.683

  2 Chron. 19, 2.
• d 1.684

  1. Ioh. 3, 10, 11, 12.
• a 1.685

  Talmud Babyl. in Sanhedrin, c. 11.
• b 1.686

  Rō. 4, 11.
• † 1.687

  Hos. 11.12
• a 1.688

  Alcoran, azoar. 2, 3. &c.
• b 1.689

  Azoar. 67
• c 1.690

  Azo. 31.
• e 1.691

  Rev. 13, 3, 4.
• f 1.692

  2 Thes. 2, 4.
• g 1.693

  Rev. 2, 9. & 3, 9.
• h 1.694

  Iewes
• i 1.695

  Rev. 17.1.
• k 1.696

  Rev. 17.8 & 19, 20.
• g 1.697

  Offic. B. Mariae. ref.
• h 1.698

  Bellarm. de imagin. l. 2. c. 21-
• a 1.699

  Offic. B. Mariae. in Litan.
• b 1.700

  Engl. Vo∣taries; first book. Pref.
• c 1.701

  De nat. Deor. l. 3.
• d 1.702

  Concil. Trident. sess. 13. c. 5.
• e 1.703

  D. Fulk. answ. to a counterf. Catholik. art. 6.
• f 1.704

  Ant. Sa∣deel resp. ad profes. fid. Mon. Buld. art. ult.
• g 1.705

  Dan. 1.2.
• h 1.706

  Ioseph. Antiq. Iud. l. 11. c. 8.
• a 1.707

  Zach. 6▪13.
• b 1.708

  Rev. 11.19, & 15, 5.8. & 16, 1, 2 10.
• c 1.709

  Rev. 7, 15.17. & 14, 1, 2, 3, 4.
• d 1.710

  Rev. 13, 6
• e 1.711

  2. Thes. 2.
• f 1.712

  Zach. 11.17.
• g 1.713

  Oracul. Sibyl. l. 3.
• h 1.714

  Treat. of the Minist. p. 25.
• * 1.715

  Ier. 51, 45.
• * 1.716

  Ezek. 11, 16.
• “ 1.717

  Advert. p. 64.
• a 1.718

  Rev. 18.7
• b 1.719

  Rev. 20.5
• c 1.720

  2 Thes. 2.12.
• d 1.721

  1. Ioh. 3.8 & 5.18.
• e 1.722

  Ezek. 13.22.
• a 1.723

  August. de ver. rel. c. 1.
• b 1.724

  Advert. p. 65.
• c 1.725

  Pag. 7.
• d 1.726

  2 Tim. 2.19.
• e 1.727

  Exod. 19.5.
• f 1.728

  Ezek. 16.8.
• g 1.729

  Deut. 29.29.
• h 1.730

  In the preface, sect. 7.
• a 1.731

  Letters between M. Iun. & the exil. En¦glish Ch. at Amster∣dam anno 1602.
• b 1.732

  Advert. pag. 100.
• c 1.733

  Rom. 1 7.8.
• d 1.734

  2 Thes. 2.4.8.11.12.
• e 1.735

  Rev. 18.••.3. & 16.14.
• f 1.736

  Rev. 17.18.
• g 1.737

  2 Thes. 2.
• p 1.738

  Rev. 9, 1, 2 3. &c.
• † 1.739

  Rev. 9, 20
• q 1.740

  In annot on Rev. 9.
• r 1.741

  pag. 105.
• s 1.742

  Rev. 13, 4. & 14, 9, 10.
• t 1.743

  Concil. Lateran. Sess. 6.
• a 1.744

  Concil. Trid. sess. 23. can. 6.
• b 1.745

  Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 24.
• c 1.746

  Lib. Be∣nedicti de Benedictis, printed at Bononia an. 1608.
• d 1.747

  Pontifi∣ciae omni∣potentiae.
• e 1.748

  Rev. 16.13.14. 2 Thes. 2.9.
• f 1.749

  Bellar. de eccles. l. 3. c. 2.
• g 1.750

  Advert. pag. 106.
• h 1.751

  pag. 108.
• * 1.752

  Rev. 17, 4.
• a 1.753

  Rev. 17.1
• b 1.754

  Rev. 17, 8
• c 1.755

  so caled, Entrav. in Ioan. 22, c. cū inter in glossa.
• † 1.756

  Answer to a coun∣terfeyt ca∣tholik. art. 21.
• e 1.757

  these things be printed an∣no 1577.
• * 1.758

  pag. 107.
• * 1.759

  Rom. 1.
• † 1.760

  Hierony. in epist. ad Princip. de obit. Mar∣cel.
• * 1.761

  Blond•• l. 6 decad. 1.
• †’ 1.762

  Chron. Carion. l. 3.
• a 1.763

  Blond•• l. 6. decad. 1.
• b 1.764

  Sabellic•• En. 8. l. 5.
• c 1.765

  Blond l. 2. d. 2. Fas∣cic. temp. f. 66.
• d 1.766

  Rev. 2, & 3. chapters
• e 1.767

  Advert. p. 108.
• f 1.768

  Rev. 12, 14
• g 1.769

  Rev. 17.1 18.
• h 1.770

  Mat. 7, 15. Rev. 13, 11.
• a 1.771

  Rev. 16.16. Iudg. 5.19.
• b 1.772

  Pag. 111.
• c 1.773

  Advert. pag. 105.
• d 1.774

  Pag. 106.
• e 1.775

  M. Iohns. Treat. of the Minist. pag. 60-62.
• f 1.776

  Rev. 20.4. & 13.4.
• g 1.777

  Rev. 18.20.
• h 1.778

  Gen. 19.28.
• i 1.779

  Advert. Pag. 113.
• b 1.780

  Bern. Ep. 125.
• c 1.781

  Bernard, de Consid. l. 2.
• d 1.782

  Rev. 18, 23.
• e 1.783

  1. Reply to D. Whit¦gift, p. 137.
• f 1.784

  2. Reply p. 146.
• g 1.785

  Perk. Ex∣pos. of the Creed: tit. Church.
• h 1.786

  Ibid.
• a 1.787

  Answer to art. 11.
• b 1.788

  Answer to a••t. 20.
• c 1.789

  Ibid. an∣swer to ar. 29.
• d 1.790

  Synopsis Papismi. Contr. 2. of the Ch. q. 5. part. 2.
• e 1.791

  Ibid. Cō∣tr. 4. q. 10.
• f 1.792

  Ibid. par. 9.
• g 1.793

  Image of both chur∣ches; in the pref.
• * 1.794

  Dan. 7. O••∣colampad. in Daniel.
• a 1.795

  Confess. art. 38.
• b 1.796

  Act. 15.2.
• c 1.797

  vers. 3.
• d 1.798

  vers. 4.
• e 1.799

  ver. 25.
• f 1.800

  vers. 28. &c.
• a 1.801

  Deut. 24.1.
• b 1.802

  Mat. 19.8.
• c 1.803

  1 Cor. 7.6.
• a 1.804

  Advertis. p. 27.
• * 1.805

  Cōfess. art. 10.17.19.20. Coun∣terp. p. 175•• 176. De∣fēse against Mr Smyth. p. 126.127.128. and in other Trea∣tises.
• * 1.806

  In their dispute a∣gainst us: & in Mr Rob. Iustif. p. 217.225. &c.
• b 1.807

  pag. 10.
• c 1.808

  Confess. art 17.
• d 1.809

  1. Pet. 2, 9
• e 1.810

  Rev. 5, 10.
• f 1.811

  Refut. of Giffard. p. 75.
• g 1.812

  Rev. 1, 6. Psal. 149.
• “ 2.1

  pag. 27.
• * 2.2

  1. Cor. 5.4.5.
• † 2.3

  p. 47.
• * 2.4

  Num. 16, 9 2. 2 Chrō. 35, 3.2. Co. 4, 5.
• * 2.5

  See for this, Iustif. of separati∣on pag. 134 135.
• * 2.6

  Heb. 4 12. 2. Cor. 10.4, 5.
• * 2.7

  pag 226.
• * 2.8

  p. 133.
• * 2.9

  Iob. 21, 3.
• * 2.10

  Rev. 1.6 & 5.10.
• * 2.11

  Eph. 6, 11, 17.
• * 2.12

  II.
• † 2.13

  Act. 11, 26 Rom. 14.4, 5. 1. Cor. 12, 27.
• * 2.14

  III.
• * 2.15

  1. Pet. 4.10
• * 2.16

  IIII.
• * 2.17

  V.
• * 2.18

  Iustific. p. ••18, 219.
• * 2.19

  pag. 217.
• † 2.20

  2. Chron. 35.3. Num. 16.9. Eze. 44.11. 2 Cor. 4, 5.
• * 2.21

  Math. 20, 28.
• † 2.22

  Luk. 22, 27
• * 2.23

  Ioh. 13, 4, 5.
• † 2.24

  Major in minore.
• * 2.25

  Dominus.
• ‡ 2.26

  Domina.
• * 2.27

  Domini.
• † 2.28

  Dominus.
• * 2.29

  Non con∣venit Do∣minū glo∣riari in ser∣vo suo. &c.
• * 2.30

  Confess. art. 24.
• * 2.31

  Coūterp. pag. 177.
• † 2.32

  Coūterp. pag. 177.
• * 2.33

  1. Cor. 5.4 12, 13.
• * 2.34

  Confess. art. 34, &c.
• * 2.35

  pag. 66.
• † 2.36

  Confess. art. 34.
• * 2.37

  Conf. art. 24. Apol. p. 45.62.
• * 2.38

  Confess. art. 21. &c.
• * 2.39

  Cōfess. art. 1.10.17.18. &c. through∣out.
• * 2.40

  Act. 15, 9, 11.
• † 2.41

  Lev. 5.5.
• “ 2.42

  Lev. 6, 5.
• * 2.43

  Bellar. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 3.
• † 2.44

  Ioh. 18, 36
• * 2.45

  Rom. 13.1 &c.
• “ 2.46

  pag. 55.
• a 2.47

  Rev. 20, 6.
• b 2.48

  Heb. 10, 19.
• c 2.49

  Lev. 16, 2.17. Luk. 1.10
• d 2.50

  Col. 2.20 21.
• e 2.51

  Mat. 18, 17—20. & 28.20. Act. 11, 2—18. & 15, 22— 28. & 21, 18—22. 1. Cor. 5, 1.— 13. Rev. 2, 29. & 5, 10.
• f 2.52

  S•••• be∣fore, pag. 16.
• * 2.53

  Plea for in∣fants p. 166 167.1••8. Treat. a∣gainst Ana∣baptists p. 16. &c. A∣pol. p. 108. &c. Answ. to Mr Iak. p 17. & ••••.
• a 2.54

  Dis••ov. pag. 116.
• b 2.55

  Apol. p. 109. &c.
• c 2.56

  pag. 69. &c.
• d 2.57

  2. King. 18, 4.
• e 2.58

  M. Perk. Wa••ning against I∣dol. p. 23.
• * 2.59

  Refut. of Giff. p. 65, &c.
• f 2.60

  Answ. to M. Iakob. in pref. p. 1
• g 2.61

  Apolog. p. 113.
• * 2.62

  Aristot. polit. l. 5. c. 9.
• † 2.63

  1. Cor. 5.
• “ 2.64

  1. Tim. 5. 17. Heb. 13 17.
• * 2.65

  D. Bilson, perpet. go∣vernm. ch. 15.
• * 2.66

  Nazianz. epist. 42. ad Procop.
• * 2.67

  Act. 20.28 Rō. 12.7.8. 1. Pet. 5.
• * 2.68

  1 Ioh. 3.20.
• * 2.69

  Advert. p. 87.
• † 2.70

  Luk. 17.1
• “ 2.71

  Mat. 7, 2, 12.
• * 3.1

  I. O.