Animadversion to Cliftons Advertisement, Part 3 · Point 3
The 3. point of difference: in the Letter.
1. WE had learned,Confess. art. 23. & 3… Apolog. p. 46, 47. that every Christian congregation hath power and cōmandement to elect and ordeyn their own Ministerie, according to the rules of Gods word: and upon such default in life doctrine or administration, as by the rule of the word depriveth them of the ministerie, by due order to depose them from the ministerie they exercised, yea if the case so require, orderly to cut them of by excommunication. But now it is by some mainteyned, that the Congregation can neyther put into office, nor put out of office unless they have officers to doo both: and can neyther for heresie or other wickednes excommunicate or depose their Eldership.
With this they joyn the first out of the printed copy: which is as the former.
These things are confirmed in our Articles, by Act. 6.3.5.6. & 14.23. & 15.2.3.22.23. 2. Cor. 8.19. 1. Tim. 3.10. & 4.14. & 5.22. Num. 8.9.10. 1. Cor. 16.3. Tit. 1.5. &c. Eph. 4.11.12. 1. Cor. 12.7.8.14.15.28. Levit. 8. ch. Rom. 16.17. Phil. 3.2. 1. Tim. 6.3.5. Ezek. 44.12.13. Mat. 18.16. And in our Apologie by 7. reasons deduced frō the Scriptures.
Advertis. p. 47.Hereunto they say 1. That the church may excommunicate an officer as wel as any other member. I answer, they yet touch not the point; We speak of the churches ministerie or Eldership in general; they tel us of one in particular: who because ther ar other ministers, he may be censured by them. Bur if a church have onelyonly one minister, and he prove a wolf: they can neyther put him out of office, nor excō municate him, by their doctrine. 2. Secondly they say, if al the officers jointly transgress and so persist: then the church which did chuse thē, may also depose and refuse them from being their officers any longer, and may separate themselves from them. But that the people may excommunicate al their officers, they desire to see it shewed from the word. I answer, though they can not deny the Article, yet they seek covertly to cary the reader aside. The article speaketh of chusing and ordeyning, and so putting into office: they answer onelyonly of chusing: the other they pass by. But let them shew ever any church, where men were chosen, and not also ordeyned and put into office: or that God committed the beginning of such a work to any people, and not the ending also. And why wil they sever the things God hath joyned? In the law; the church had authoritie †Deut. 16.18.to make them (that is as the Greek version sheweth constitute or ordeyn, which word Paul useth Tit. 1.5.) Judges and officers in al their cities: and not to elect them onelyonly. 2. The article speaketh of deposing from ministery and putting out of office: they answer onelyonly of deposing and refusing from being their officers any longer: That is to say, as men that have left the church of Rome, have deposed the Pope: for in separating from him, he is their officer no longer. But is he not, trow we, a Pope stil▪ And shal not an Eldership, when the people have doon al this that they speak of, reteyn a ministery stil?
The separation which they tel us of, is thus opened by their own comment, *Treat. on Mat. 18. p. 25.that it implieth the power we have over our selves, wheras excommunication implieth power and authoritie over others. Thus they allow not the body of the Church power and authority over their heretical Eldership, (though it be but 2. or 3. wicked men,) to cast them out of the Church in Christs name and power, or to depose them from office, but from being their officers. Even thus they themselves h…ve deposed al the Bishops of England long agoe. But whether this be not to aequivocate with the word depose, let wise men j…dge: for a litle after they ask †Advertis. p. …8.whether it can be shewed by any scripture, that any did ordeyn or depose officers, but Governours. Now wheras our … & Apologie is confirmed by many scriptures & reasons deduced from them, they answer them not, as is meet they should, seing they wil abrogate their former profession, and bring in a new: neither doo they (as they then *Apol. p. 48.wrote must be doon) shew some other manner of entrance [into the ministerie] ordeyned by Christ; but thus they labour to confute themselves. 1. The particuculars of the 23. Article of our Confession being found true in the churches of Jsrael, and of the Gentlies since Christ: the exception made hereabout can not be of weight against this or any other Church established according to the word of God, as those were, but must be also against those Churches withal. What to make of this their answer, as yet I cannot tell: my slendernes cō prehendeth not the depth of it. That the particulars of that 23. article, were found true in the Churches of God; I doubt not of it: that is the thing we stand for. That exception should be made by us hereabout, against this or any Church, established according to the word of God as these were: is farr from our thought. What is it then that they have sayd: but an ostentation of the name of Jsrael, their mayn colourable argument, which yet is against them, not for them at all, as our Cō fession and Apologie sheweth. In Israel the *Num. 8.9.10.whole Congregation was assembled at the ordination of their ministers, and the childrē of Israel imposed hands upon them. This rule we folow: but these our opposites wil not allow churches (unless they have ministers before,) to doo thus: they wil rather have their ministerie from the great Antichrist of Rome, (as after shalbe manifested,) for which they have no shew in the scriptures. For did Israel ever take Egyptian or Babylonian preists to minister in their sanctuary? or did the primitive churches ever take any Bishop of the †1. Ioh. 2.18.19.Antichrists that were in there time, & set them by vertue of their Antichristian ordination over the flock of Christ? why then doo these men so oftē tel us of Jsrael and the primitive churches, unless they think their very names would make us afrayd?
But they except against Num. 8.9.10. saying, by the children of Jsrael &c. are the Elders of Jsrael often meant. I answer, 1. First this being granted, it disprooveth not our argument; for it may be often so used elswhere, and yet not here. When we reason from Heb. 1.8. O God thy throne is for ever, to prove Christs Godhead: the Arians object, that Princes and Magistrates are often caled Gods, Psal. 82. Exod. 21.6. but is that a sufficient answer? 2. Secondly that which these say, is here true, but not the whole truth. … Elders, are meant as principals, but not they to be al the congregation: which I thus manifest. The Levites now to be ordeyned Ministers, were taken in stead of al the firstborn of Israel, and not in stead of the firstborn of the Elders onelyonly: Num. 3.40.41. The Levits were now to be offred before the Lord, as a shake offring of the children of Israel, Num. 8.11. being freely given as a gift of theirs unto the Lord, to doo the service of the Tabernacle of the congregation, Num. 18.6. & 8.16. Al offrings were by those that offred them, to be presented at the dore of the Tabernacle, with imposition of hands, Levit. 1. verse. 2.3.4. &c. For as much therfore as these Levites were offred by al the Congregation (and not the Elders or officers onelyonly,) in sted of their own firstborn: it is evident that not the Officers onelyonly, but the other people also are here meant, Num. 8.10. the rather also for that before verse. 9. and after verse 11. others besides Elders are intended. 2. Secondly they object, how should so many hundred thowsand of Jsrael, eyther at once hear, or doo the things there spoken of? I answer, as wel as they heard and did other publik affayrs in the Tabernacle: unless they think, that al the people never heard or did any thing there. When the whole Congregation of Israel synned, al the Congregation was to bring a sacrifice, Num. 15.24, 25, 26. wil they ask how so many 100000. could doo it? By this reason, nothing at al should ever be doon in Israel by the multitude, eyther for word, prayers, sacrifices &c. And so by their proportion of the Church now, let the people be exempted from word, prayers, sacraments, as wel as from ordination of officers, and censuring of synners: and let the Eldership be al in al.
3. Thirdly they except, if it be sayd some did it for the rest: first, who were those some, but the Elders! secondly, under whom did they it, but under the Lord, who set them over the people to minister and govern in his sted? I answer, first the multitude & not the Elders onelyonly were assembled. Secondly the multitude and not the Elders onelyonly, gave these Levits to the Lord: both these are before proved. Thirdly for the order and manner of giving, Moses governed the action, to him it was sayd, *Num. 8.7.9.thou shalt sprinkle water, thou shalt bring them before the Lord &c. and then †vers. 10.the children of Jsrael imposed …ands: this I understand, not of every particular man, but of some of the cheif for the rest: as the Elders, heads of tribes, cheif fathers of families &c. as when †Num. 15.24.25.a… the multitude brought an oblation for their syn, the Elders put their hands on the head of the sacrifice, Lev. 4.14.15. Accordingly have wee practised in our ordination of officers (as these our opposites wel know,) some of the cheif of the Church, the ancientest, and fathers of families, imposed hands in name of the rest. Now to their secōd questiō I answer, they did it under the Lord, and for the other people. But this wil not satisfy them, for they say they were over the people to minister and govern in Gods sted, Exod. 20.12. Num. 11.16.—30. Deut. 1.9. — 18. & 16.18. & 17.12. & 19.12, 17. &c, I answer, admit that al they which imposed hands were governours, (though that cannot be proved, neyther dooth honour thy father & mother Exod. 20, 12. I am sure, shew any such thing:) yet they did not this thing as a work peculiar to their office of goverment, neyther do any of the scriptures alledged, shew so much, but the contrary may be manifested. For if they did it as governours, then was it eyther as governours ecclesiastical and ministers in the sanctuarie: but so were not they, for Aaron and his sonns had peculiarly that charge, Levit. 8. Or they did it as governours civil, & Magistrates of the cōmon wealth. Which if it be affirmed, then first, Christian Magistrates now (which have civil authoritie equal with the Magistrates of Israel;) may ordeyn and impose hands on church ministers: and so men need not run to Rome to borow a Ministery from Antichrist, as many now doo fansie. Secondly if civil Magistrates may impose hands on Ministers: it wil folow, that the Church wanting Magistrates, may also by the Fathers of families, or other fittest members impose hands. For it is not properly a work tyed to the magistrates office: 1. because then the churches in the Apostles times wanting Magistrates, could not have had Ministers: but they †Act. 14. Tit. 1.had, and yet never intruded into the Magistrates office. 2. Because the Magistrates sword and office is not subordinate to Christ as he is mediatour and head of the Church, (for so ther should be no lawful magistrates but Christians & mē bers of the church:) but Magistrates have their office next under ‘*Rō. 13.1.God, to be ‘†Iob. 12.24.heads of the Common weales (whether they be mēbers of the church “Act. 25.11or not,) as Christ hath his office under God to be *’Eph. 1.22head of the Church: and these two goverments are so distinct, as they neyther may be confounded, neyther doo one take in hand the work peculiarly belonging to another. Christ professed his *Ioh. 18.36kingdom not to be of this world, neyther medled … with the †Mat. 26.52outward sword, nor “Luk. 12.14.civil controversies: neyther on the other side, might the Kings of Israel medle with the Preists work, *’2 Chrō. 26.16, 18.to burn incense, or the like. 3. Because the works of the civil Magistrates office in Israel, might be performed by hethēs when they ruled over that nation: as appointing of officers, judging of controversies, punishment of malefactors &c. So Nebuchadnezar the Babylonian lawfully aIer. 27.6..8.12.(as concerning God,) reigned over the Iewes, and did bIer. 40.5.set over them a governour, and put some of them to death cIer. 29.22 23.for adulterie & other evils. And the Iewes were bound to obey him and his substitutes, and to dIer. 29.7.pray for his cōmon wealth. But to the Babylonian Preists they might not be subject. Neyther doo I think that our opposites wil say, Nebuchadnezar and his Princes might give office of Ministerie, or impose hands on the Levites in the sanctuarie. Wherfore I conclude that the cheif fathers of Israel imposed hands on the Levites, not because of their office of magistracie (if they had such an office,) as if it could not ells have been performed: but because they were the principallest members of the Church, & therfore by order to doo it before al other, and in the name of al other, which for the multitude of them could not perform it: which order al churches now are *1. Cor. 14.40.bound to keep for ever. And this which I have sayd, the words of the text in their natural sense doo confirm, †Num. 8.10.the sonns of Jsrael shal put their hands upon the Levites: shewing that they did it not by title of Magistracie, but as Israelites. So also in the other case, when the Elders imposed hands on the syn offring, Levit. 4, 14, 15. it was not a work peculiar to the ecclesiastical Elders: for afterward ††Chron. 29, 23.King Hezekiah with the Congregation layd their hands upon the sacrifices. Which thing also he did not by peculiar right of his kingly office, but as he was principal of the Church of Israel; for when they had no King, the Church might doo it, by the next cheif mēbers; & an unbeleeving King reigning over them might not doo it. Also if any people returning from captivity, had wanted Magistrates; they were not deprived therby of offring sacrifice for their publik syn. For if every private man might impose hands on his own sacrifice, as Levit. 1.3.4. how can we think that the whole company synning, the cheif fathers might not have imposed hands, according to that rule, Lev. 4.15. Yea the word Elders dooth not alwayes (though often) mean Magistrates or ministers by office, but *Exod. 10.9. & 17.5. Lev. 19.32. Ezr. 3, 12. Ioel. 2.16.28. Prov. 20 29. 1. King. 12.6.8.sometime ancient in yeres.
The other things which they allege, about the varietie of phrase, as they doo not disprove the thing forespoken: so make they nothing for them. They say such as are caled Elders, Lev. 9.1. are caled children of Jsrael, Lev. 9, 3. this is true: for who ever doubted but the Elders were sonns of Jsrael as wel as the other people. But if they bring it to prove the Elders or Officers onelyonly to be there intended, I deny it: the whole chapter after manifesteth the publick church to be meant. For when Aaron had offred his own †vers. 8.syn-offring, and *verse 12.burnt-offring; then offred he the “verse 15, 16.18.peoples syn-offring, and their burnt-offring, and their peace offrings: and after lifted up his hands to the people and †vers. 22. &c.blessed them. This was one of the most publik assemblies, and who would ever dream that the Elders onelyonly were here expiated by sacrifice, and blessed of the Preist? they might even as wel say, the Elders onelyonly did keep and eat the passover; cō paring Exod. 12.3. with Exod. 12.21. where one verse sayth al the congregation, and an other, al the Elders.
The next exception of the Septuagints translating the sonns of Jsrael in Greek the Eldership: is not of weight, though the translators should have minded as doo their Commenters. But they purposed not hereby to exclude the people, any more then in 1. Sam 8.4. they would exclude the Elders: where when the original text sayth, the Elders of Jsrael came to Samuel, they translate it in Greek, the men of Jsrael. So the Elders of Jabesh, 1. Sam. 11, 3. the Greek caleth the men of Jabesh. Of like weight are their observations about the word Church or Congregation, which being but once †Pro. 26, 26turned in Greek the synedrion, they *In Treat. Mat. 18. p. 7.skore it up, as making for their Eldership: but though it be once, twise and thrise turned ‡2 Chr. 30.24. & 31.18 Exod. 12, 6. Ier. 31, 8. Ezek. 17.17 & 23.46,laos, plethos, ochlos, that is, the people, and multitude; they can let them places pass, and say never a word. Moreover touching this place in hand, Num. 8, 10. the Greek version as wel as the Hebrue it self sayth, the children of Jsrael, shal impose their hands vponupon 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 any example in Israel; no though Rome were as true a church as they now plead her to be. For that the ministers of one particular church should ordeyn officers for an other church, is more unorderly then when every church ordeyneth them in it self: the Apostles and Evangelists had their offices in al churches, so have not Pastors. Magistrates are limited within their own precincts: and the Maior or Bailive of one corporation, hath no jurisdiction in another. So should al ministers be bounded within their own charges, and not chalenge catholik authoritie in al churches, as dooth the †2. Thes. 2 8.lawless usurping man of syn, Antichrist. Thirdly, the scriptures and reasons in our Articles and Apologie, serv also for the ordination and deposition of ministers; though it please these men to pass them over in silēce, because they are too heavy for them to lift. In our Apologie pag. 43. there are 6. arguments, and in pag. 47. six other arguments confirmed by scriptures, as the reader may see: til our opposites answer thē, we think it needless to set down more.
Fourthly, we hold it necessary that al church actions be orderly caried, eyther by the officers if ther be any, or by the Magistrates as in Israel, or by the Fathers of families, or the most excellent in gifts requested therunto by the congregation: this we firmly mainteyn, against al popular confusion and disorder whatsoever. And M. Iohnson himself hath expressly defended this truth heretofore against M. Iaakob, *pag. 210.that where people first come to the order of Christ, imposition of hands is to be doon by the fittest among them, being therunto appointed by the rest of the church, alleging Num. 8.10. though now he useth for defense of his contrary error, the Iesuites answers. For even so dooth Bellarmine turn away the reasons of the protestantes, saying, †De Rom. Pont. l. 1.….6.the people did never ordeyn nor create ministers, nor give them any power, but onelyonly named and designed them. Act. 1. & 6.