Parallels Censures — John Smyth

Parallels Censures · John Smyth

The ſeaventh Section.

Now followeth you fifth poſition which you alſo perſwade your ſelfe to be an error, and which being wel expounded I account the vndoubted truth, viz.

5. That the powre of binding & loſing is given to the whole multitude, & not to the principal members therof: Theſe are your wordes.

I hold & maintayne out of the word that a cōpany of faithful people Seperated from al vncleanenes & joyned together by a covenant of the L. are a true Church: yea though they be but two or three: So Adam & Hevah were a Church: ſo Lot, his wife, & his daughters were a Church: So Noah & his family in the Ark were a church: So the twelve men at Epheſus were a Church, Act. 19.7. So in Q. Maries dayes the Martyrs ſeperated were a church, if but two or thre of them lived together: That this is a truth, I prove vntounto you thus.

2. Cor. 6.16-18. with whome God maketh his covenant to be ther God, & whome he receaveth to be his people, they are a Temple, that is a Church vntounto him, vſus. 16.

But two or three faithful people comming forth from the vnbeleevers, & being Seperated, & touching no vneleane thing, are Gods people, & God with them maketh his covenant, & they are his ſonnes & daughters, & he is their Father, vſus. 16.17.18.

Therfor two or three faithful people are the Temple and Church of God.

The Premiſſes are evidently delivered in the Scripture: therfor the concluſion foloweth neceſſarily.

Mat. 18.20. wher two or thre are gathered together into my name, ther am I in the mids of them.

In the mids of whomſoever Chriſt doth dwel & walk, they are a true Church of Chriſt: Even his Temple, Tabernacle, & habitation: as theſe Scriptures teach being compared together, Mat. 28.20. 2. Cor. 6.16. Levit. 26.11.12.

But among two or three gathered together by love, & into the name of Chriſt by faith, Chriſt is preſent to dwel & walk, Mat. 18.20. 2. Cor. 6.16. compared together.

Therefor two or three faithful people are the Temple & Church of God. I could alledg other Scriptures: but two or three witneſſes are ſufficient.

Remember for this point that the covenant made with Adam, Abaham, Iſaac, Iacob, & al the faithful, is made with any faithful people in the world, as if two or three faithful people should aiſe vp in the dominions of the Turk, or Pope, or Iewes, or Pagans, & joyne together to walk in the faith, the Lord maketh his covenant with them, he is their God, they are his people, they are his Temple, he walketh ther, he is their Father, they are his ſonnes & daughters, Chriſt is their King, they are his Kingdome, even a Kingdome of Preiſts, &c: & therfor wherſoever in the Scripture the covenant is made with any, it is to be vnderſtood as made with Abrahams childrē according to the faith, & therfor with two or three faithful people any were in the world.

This being premiſed as the ground of our whole cauſe, & we having departed from al the profane of the Land, & having ſeperated & touching no vncleane thing, 2. cor. 6, 17 We are Gods people, his temple, his Church: he dwelleth & walketh among vsus, & he hath given to vsus, & made with vsus his covenant, Heb. 8.10. & although we were but …ew in nomber, yet the Lord choſe vsus to be his.

Wee being now the Church of God, wee have the powre of the L. Ieſus Chriſt given vntounto vsus: For we have himſelf out owne by title & poſſeſſiō, & vſe, & that by vertue of the covenāt God made with vsus: for ſo God is our God & our Father, only in Chr. & through him: & al the promiſes of God in Chriſt are yea & Amen: Chriſt therfor is ours: Chriſt he is our King & our Preiſt, & we are his Kingdome: & we have his powre, that this is ſo I prove vntounto you by theſe Scriptures.

Marc. 13.34. Chriſt aſcending vp into Heaven (for that is his going into a farre country as may be perceaved by Luk. 19.12. with Mat. 28.18. & Eph. 4.8.) gave authority to his ſervants leaving his howſe that is his Church according to his bodily preſence: now what authority is this that Chriſt gave vntounto his ſervāts? that is evident by other places of ſcriptures, 1. Cor. 5. the powre of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt which the Corinths had that is the powre of admonition & excommunication, the powre of binding & loſing, a powre to adminiſter Chriſts Kingdome, & al the ordinances therof.

Mat. 16.19. The powre of binding & loſing is given to Peter.

Ioh. 20.23. The powre of binding & loſing is given to al the Apoſtles.

Marc. 13.34. The powre of Chriſt it given to his Servants.

1. Cor. 5.4 The powre of Chriſt is in the hands of the Corinths.

Now let vsus make collections & gather inſtructions out of theſe places, & the truth wil moſt evidently appeare.

The Pope ſaith out of the 16. of Mathew, that the powre of binding & loſing is givē to Peter & his ſucceſſors the popes of Rome & that al the Bbs. & Preiſts in the world, & the whole Church vniverſal receaveth binding & loſing from him.

Nay ſay the English Prelates out of the 20. of Iohn Chriſt gave the powre of binding & loſing to al the Apoſtles & their ſucceſſors the Lord Bbs. of Englād, & that al the Preiſts, & people in the Land, receave binding & loſing from them in their ſeverall dioceſes.

Nay ſay the Presbyterians of England out of Mat. 18.17. The powre of binding & loſing is given to the Edership, & the poeple they are bound or loſed by the Presbytery: For by the Church they vnderſtand the Presbytery.

Nay ſay we, the powre of binding & loſing is given to the body of the Church, even to two or thre faithful people joyned together in covenant, & this we prove evidently in this manner.

VntoUnto whome the covenant is given, vntounto them the powre of binding & loſing is given.

The covenant is given to the body of the Church, that is to two or three faithful ones: For God is their God, & they are his people.

Therfor the powre of binding & loſing is given to them.

Againe. VntoUnto whom Chriſt is given for King, vntounto thē the powre of Chriſt the King is given, as being his deputies & lieftenants.

But Chriſt is given for King vntounto the body of the Church, even to two or three faithful people, who are his Kingdome, & howſe, & cittie.

Therfor vntounto them is given his powre, that is his powre to bind & loſe.

Finally. VntoUnto whome the covenant & Chriſt is given, vntounto them al the promiſes are given, for al the promiſes are conteyned in the covenant, & in Chriſt, as theſe places prove, 2. Cor. 1.20. Pſal. 133.3. Act. 2.39. Gal. 3.14.15.16. & the powre of binding & loſing is one of the promiſes, & is a part & parcel of the covenant, Mat. 16.19. Ioh. 20.23. Mat. 18.15-20.

But the covenāt & Chriſt & al the promiſes, are givē to the body of the church even to two or three faithful ones.

Therfor the powre of binding & loſing is given to them alſo.

But ther are certayne objections which muſt be anſwered in nomber three.

Ob. 1. One is that Chriſt ſpeaketh only to Peter & to his Apoſtles, & giveth the powre only to them therfor, Mat. 16.19. Iohn. 20.23. Mat. 18.17.

For anſwer thus much.

The place Mat. 16. although it be directed to Peter perſonally, yet it is intended vntounto all the Diſciples of Chriſt: For vntounto them is the powre given, that have the ſaith and made the confeſſion ther mentioned: But the faith & confeſſion of faith is of al the Diſciples, & ſpoken by Peter in behalf of them al: & therfor the powre is by promiſe given to al,

The place Ioh. 20.23. importeth plainly that Mary Magdalene, & divers other of the Diſciples were preſent when Chriſt ſpake vntounto them for they were aſſembled together in a howſe, the dore being shut, & it was the L. day: & not the Apoſtles only, but the reſt of the Diſciples were aſſēbled in al likely-hood for the Sanctification of the L. day: yea further Thomas was abſent, & ſo the promiſe of binding & loſing could not be made to him at that preſent, & afterward it was not made to him, & ſo by conſequent that one of the Ap. had not the powre givē him by ther reaſon which plead it to be given to the Apoſt. only. The place Mat. 18.17. doth not prove that this powre was given to the Presbyterie, for that place importeth that it was given to the Church, now the Eldership is not the Church, but a part of the Church, & it muſt be proved that the word Church doth ſignifie the Eldership (or els this place wil help nothing), as I am ſure cannot be showed out of the word: beſides the circumſtances of the place teach that Chriſt intēdeth the powre of binding & loſing to be given to every brother, for ſo he ſaith, if thy brother ſin: & lett him be vntounto the: & take two or three witneſſes: & where two or three, &c. I am in the midſt of them.

Finally, It cannot be denyed but admonition aperteyneth to every brother, & why should not excommunication: For their is powre to bind & loſe in two or thre witneſſes toward a brother, & why not powre to bind & loſe in the body of the Church, if the whole Church be but two or three: or ſome ſmal nomber.

Now for the vtter over throwing of this conceipt of the powre given to the Presbyterie only, conſider that the twelve were not yet Apoſtles, only they were nominated to be Apoſtles: they were inveſted in their office at the deſcending of the Holy Ghoſt on the day fo Pentecoſt: which I prove vntounto you evidently. Eph. 4.8.11, when Chriſt aſcended he gave gifts vntounto men, viz: the gifts of Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, Paſtors & Teachers: For Chriſt receaved his Kingdom when he aſcended. Luk. 19.12. For Chriſt obteyned a Kingdome by his death, & he receaved his Kingdome, when he went into that fane country: & Chriſt by his ſufferings entred into his glory: So that Chriſts Kingdome in regard of the outward regiment & ordinances thereof beganne at the day of Pentecoſt, when the Apoſtles were endued with powre from on high Luk. 24.49. Act, 1.8. & it shal end at the day of judgment, 1. Cor. 15.24.25. Seing therfor that they were not yet Apoſtles, but only Diſciples, the powre given to them was given to them as Diſciples, not as Apoſtles: & therfor all Chriſts Diſciples may juſtly in al ages challendg that powre of binding & loſing: For a concluſion therfor in a word, the commaundement of binding and loſing is given to every brother, go the promiſe & powre of binding & loſing is givē to them alſo: as the forſaid places do evince. & as the charter of a corporatiō is frō the King & al the offices have powre from the corporation, ſo the Church hath powre frō Chriſt, & the Eldership from the church & as the body hath powre from the head, & the parts of the body have their powre from the body: So the church which is Chriſts body; hath powre from Chriſt, & the Eldership a part of the body hath powre from the body.

Ob. 2. A ſecond objection is this that if the powre of binding & loſing be givē to the body of the Church, then powre of preaching & adminiſtring the ſeales of the covenant: truth: we confeſſe it: & the church being a corporation committeth powre to adminiſter to ſuch officers as Chriſt hath apointed to his church, viz: to the Elders or Bishops: ſtil reſerving powre to correct her officers by the ſame powre of binding & loſing in admonition & excommunication, the benefit wherof doth as wel perteyne to the Elders as other of the brethren, except it be ſaid the Elders are to be exempted from cenſures, & ſo to want thoſe meanes of Salvation which the brethren have, which is a pitiful condition, & alamentable priviledg.

Ob. 3. A third ebjection is that the benefit of binding & loſing, of the word & ſeales of the covenant is given to the church, & al the members, but not the powre of thē: wherto thus much may be anſwered, viz: that the Church, viz: two or thre faithful ones have as is ſaid the covenant, Chriſt, the promiſes not only in vſe, but in title & poſſeſſion: & the faithful have as good powre & title or intereſt to the covenant, Chriſt, & the promiſes, as a freholder hath to his lands & poſſeſſions. Eſa 9.6. VntoUnto vsus a ſonne is given: the chruch is the ſpouſe of Chriſt, & ſo hath powre to Chriſt the covenant & promiſes: the Church is the body of Chriſt, the body hath a real poſſeſſion, title, & powre to the head & all the helps therof: For the faithful are flesh & bones of Chriſt, Eph. 5.30. theſe things are manifeſt to them that wil vnderſtand: & if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant.

But it may be Mr. Bern. you wil ſay that powre to bind & loſe are no properties of the Church, but only priviledges: For shame ſay not ſo: Surely this plea argueth that either you got litle Logick in the vniverſity, or that you have forgot it, or if you remēber it you either careleſly neglect it, or wilfully pervert the vſe of it to ſeduce your followers: I pray you tel me in good ſooth what difference is there betwixt a priviledg & a propertie: Is not a priviledge according to the notation of the word privata lex: a private law wherin one perſon or ſtate is intereſſed. The King hath certaine previledges or prerogatives as to pardon condemned perſons, to diſpence with his law, a negative voice in parliament &c. I would faigne know of you, whither theſe be not properties, ſuch as the Kings & Queenes of the nation only have title to & no other: but conſider wel with your ſelf what relation ther is betwixt a priviledg & the perſon that is interreſſed in the priviledg: Is it not the relation of the ſubject & the adjunct? A priviledg therfor is an adjunct to the priviledged perſon: Now al adjuncts are either proper or common adjuncts: but a priviledge is not a common adjunct, as I am ſure you wil confeſſe, or els you want reaſon: therfor it is a proper adjunct: It it be a proper adjunct it is a propertie, & ſo your diſtinction is ſenſeleſſe & vnſcholler like you may aswel ſay that pepper is hot in working & cold in operation, as to ſay that the true Church may be without her priviledges, but not without her properties: Therfor I doe heer before the L. attach you as a deceaver of the people in teaching thus contrary to al learning & true vſe of reaſon, that the powre of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt given to the church, one part whereof conſiſteth in binding & loſing is only a priviledg & not a propertie of the true Church: & that the true Church may want it: It is as impoſſible for the true Church to want Chriſts powre, as for a man to want reaſon: Mr. Ber. anſwer now or els yeeld to the truth you cannot for shame denie the one of them.

Paralleles, Cenſures, Obſervations, aperteyning to the ſeaventh Section.

In this Section I write & prove, that the powre of binding & loſing is given to the whole multitude, & not to the principal members therof.

Mr. Bern. in his book intituled the Sep. Schiſme, pa. 88. calleth it the A.B.C. of Browniſme to hold: That the powre of Chriſt that is, authority to Preach, to adminiſter the Sacraments, & to exerciſe the cenſures of the Church, belongeth to the whole Church, yea to every one of them, & not the principal members therof.

Mr. Ainſ. anſwering Mr. Ber, pa. 174. Saith that Mr. Ber. may put this opinion, if he pleaſe in the Criſſ-croſſe-rew of Bernardiſme, he himſelf being the firſt that ever he heard to vtter ſuch a poſition: & afterward pa. 175. 176. 177. 178. Expoundeth what that auncient Church whereof of he is teacher holdeth concerning it.

Wel: Let vsus handle theſe things largely, & to ful ſatiſfaction: & herein I profeſſe befor the Lord, & befor the whole world, that if I do not prove evidently my aſſertion that the powre of binding & loſing is given to the whole multitude, & not to the principall members therof. I wil acknowledg the Churches of England, yea the Churches of Rome yea & the Greek Churches alſo to have a true miniſtery, & to be true churches of Chriſt For if the miniſterie, & the holy things with the miniſterie, come by ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles handes, through the churches of Rome & the Grecians, & that ther are no miniſters, but ſuch as are made by thē & frō thē ſucceſſively, our whole cauſe of Seperation lyeth in the duſt & we muſt diſclaime our Schiſme which we have made, & our hereſies which we hold: but if it be proved that the true miniſterie commeth not by ſucceſſion from the churches of Rome or the Grecians, & that the holy things are not given to the miniſtery by ſuceſſiō, but are givē firſt to the body of the church, the faithful, yea though they be but two or three, & that both the miniſterie and all the powre that the miniſterie hath doth …ow from the Fountayne Chriſt Ieſus, through the body of the duplicate page duplicate page Church … the Presbytery, then is your Church & miniſterie falſe, ſo are the Churches of the Eaſt & Weſt much more: & then we & thoſe Churches only which raiſe vp their Miniſterie from the Election, aprobation, & ordination of a faithful people, are the true Church of Chriſt having the true Miniſterie of Chriſt, & you with the reſt of Gods people in Babylon muſt ſeperate & joyne together, & walk in the Lords ordinances as we & other true Churches doe, or els woe be vntounto you from the Lord: Therfor in this particular I would ſupplicate the Kings Majeſtie my Soveragne Lord on earth, the Lords of the Parliament, The Gentlemen that ſuſteyne the perſon of the commons in the nether howſe, al the learned men of the Land, to confider & to ſearch out this point: For it being throughly cleered may breed peace & infinite good to the whole nation: whereas it being ſuppreſſed, choked, darkened, & neglected draweth with it al the contentions and controverſies amongſt them that profeſſe Chriſt in the whole earth: For my part Mr. Ber. I wil endevour according to my poore hability to diſcover what I have conceaved, and doe vndoubtedly beleeve from the Scriptures, and doe make the beginning of my inquiſition after this manner which I deſire the gentle reader to weigh & conſider of with his beſt attention. Chriſts viſible church which is his Kingdom, hath in it a ſpiritual powre and juriſdiction by the confeſſion of al that profeſſe Ieſus Chriſt: which powre is of two ſortes: 1. The powre of Chriſt himſelf, who is the Lord & King of his Church. Mat. 28.18 and he is the Fountaine of powre, being the head of the Church which is his body, Eph. 1.22.23. For as the head is the Fountaine of life, ſenſe, motion, & powre to the whole body, & as the Mr. of the howſe is the original of al oeconomical powre: So is Chriſt the original of al ſpiritual life, ſenſe, motion, & powre to the Church which is his body & family: This is evident: & in regard of this powre which is inherent in Chriſt, the church which is Chriſts Kingdome may truly be termed a Monarchie, Mat. 23.8-11. Epheſ. 4.5, Iam. 4.12. This powre which Chriſt hath in himſelf cannot paſſe from himſelf to any other: For as his preiſthood is eternal, & not paſſing frō him to another, Heb. 7.24. ſo may it as truly be ſaid of his other offices, & particularly of his Kingdome & Monarchicall powre: Nevertheleſſe 2. The Lord Ieſus hath ordeyned & appointed a certayne order to be obſerved in his abſence in the true viſible Church, & hath delegated a certaine powre & authority to his Servants & ſubjects for the preferving of that order, & for the execution of thoſe ordinances: This delegated powre & authority is mentioned Marc. 13.34 1. Cor. 5.4. This delegated powre is avouched by the Papiſts to be in the Pope, by the English Prelates to be in the Lord Bbs. & Archdeacons: By the Presbyterians to be in the Eldership: by the brethren of the Seperation to be in the body of the Church primarily and fundamentally: For if the Pope, Prelates, Presbytery, or Body of the Church do ſay that the powre which is in Chriſt Ieſus is in them, they doe blaſpheme moſt fear fully robbing Chriſt of his honour & Regal powre, & make themſelves even Chriſt him ſelf: The Pope therfor is not Antichriſt for that he vſurpeth that regal powre which is proper to Chriſt: neither are the Bbs. of England Antichriſt for vſurping that proper kingly powre which is only in Chriſt: nor the Presbytery Antichriſtian for challendging the powre Monarchical of Chriſt: but they are al Antichriſtian for vſurping the delegated powre of Chriſt which he hath originally given to the body of his Church which is his myſticall body.

This delegated & Miniſterial powre which the Pope, Bbs. & Presbytery challendg, they ſay commeth to them by ſucceſſion from Chriſt: The Pope he ſaith Chriſt hath given this miniſterial powre to Peter only & his ſucceſſors the popes of Rome: The Bbs. ſay Chriſt hath given this delegated powre to al the Apoſtles, & the Apoſtles have given it to the Bbs. their ſucceſſors. The presbyterians ſay that Chriſt hath given this miniſterial powre to the presbytery, or Eldership, & they conveigh it ſucceſſively to the elders ſucceding to the worldes end in the Church: Al theſe three opinions are equally Antichriſtian, for they al of them eſtablish ſucceſſion which is Iewish, & ſo Antichriſtian. For in the old Teſtament the preiſthood was conveighed by ſucceſſiuon Heer therfor I will prove vntounto you by vndeniable arguments, that the powre of Chriſt is not given eyther to the pope, Bbs, or presbytery, but primarily it is given to the body of the Church.

Firſt Argument.

If Chriſts miniſterial powre be given by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs, or presbytery primarily, then the miniſterie is before the Church: Seing that ther muſt needes be a miniſtery before ther be any powre of Chriſt, this conſequent is infallible.

But the miniſterie is not before the Church, but after the Church: For it ariſeth out off the Church, as a part off thoſe Holy things which God hath given to his Church.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre is not given to the pope, Bbs. or presbytery primarily: but to the body of the Church.

They that affirme the miniſtery to be before the Church muſt needes hold that a miniſter is no relative to a Church, but that a man may be a miniſter, & have no flock to attend on, yea that ther may be & is a miniſtery when & where ther is no Church: or that the chardges of other men are his chardg: or that the world is his chardge: they muſt alſo maintayne that all grace floweth from the miniſterie to the Church: that the miniſterie is a more excellent ordinance then the Church: that the Church hath no powre to make miniſters, but that the miniſters have powre to make both miniſters & churches: & that miniſters are properly by their office Apoſtles over the whole world for the converting of men, & planting of Churches: & the like abſurdityes.

Second Argument.

If Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs. & presbytery: then the miniſtery of Rome is a true miniſterie, and al they that are made miniſters by the pope and his clergie, are true miniſters: Then it is lawful to joyne with the true miniſterie of Rome, and then whoſoever are ordeyned and not by a precedent miniſtery are falſely ordeyned, and ſo are falſe miniſters.

But the miniſterie of Rome is no true miniſtery, and they that are ordeyned by the pope and his clergie are no true, but falſe miniſters: and it is vtterly vnlawful to joyne with the miniſterie of Rome by the confeſſion of al the Proteſtants, and miniſters may be ordeyned truly without miniſters by the confeſſion of the ſincereſt reformiſts.

Therefor Chriſts miniſteriall powre commeth not by ſucceſſion to the Pope, Bbs. & Presbytery primarily: but to the body of the Church.

Third Argument.

If Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs. & presbytery: then the Lord hath abſolutely bound men to ſinne, ſeing that wee muſt needes joyne to the ſinnes off the Miniſters, otherwiſe men cannot poſſiblie have & enjoy the holy things of God: For it is the ordinance of God, that wee should vſe the holy things: & this aſſertion doth avouch that we muſt have thē from the miniſtery: & therfor let ther ſinnes be what they wil, we muſt have them from their hands, & ſo muſt joyne to them in al ther ſinnes.

But the L. hath not bound vsus neceſſarily to joyne to other mens ſinnes, ſeing he hath commanded vsus to Seperate from them, & this were to lay our ſinnes vppon the Lord moſt blaſphemouſly.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth not by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs. or presbytery primarily: but to the body of the Church.

The fourth Argument.

If Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs. or presbytery: then the Lord hath made the Miniſters Lords over the Church, ſo that the Church can not have or enjoy any of the holy things, any of the L. ordinances, except they wil agree or conſent them, vntounto for ther Holy things are in ther powre.

But the L. hath not made the Miniſters Lords over his Church which is his inheritance but they may have & enjoy his owne ordinances even al the Holy things contrary to the wil of wicked miniſters.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth not by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs. or presbytery primarily, but to the body of the Church.

The fifth Argument.

If Chriſts Miniſterial powre commeth to the pope, Bbs. or presbytery, then the presbytery may excommunicate the whole Church: Then the Bbs. may excommunicate ther whole dioceſes or provinces, then the pope may excommunicate the whole church vniverſal on earth.

But the L. Bbs. of England ſay the Pope cannot excommunicate England: The Reformiſts hold that the Prelates cannot excommunicate their dioceſſes, & by conſequent & juſt proportion the Presbytery cannot excommunicate that particular Church whereof they are Presbyters.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth not by ſucceſſion to the Pope, Bbs. or Presbytery primarily, but is given to the body of the Church.

The ſixth Argument.

If Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth by ſucceſſion to the Pope, Bbs. or Presbytery: Then the office of the Deacons & widowes are loſt ſith ſucceſſion: in them is interrupted & loſt: for as in the old teſtament a Preiſt came of a Preiſt, a Levite of a Levite, ſo an Elder maketh an Elder, a Deacon ordeyneth a Deacon, a widow muſt ordeyne a widow.

But the office of the Deacon & widow is not loſt, for none of Gods ordinances are perisht, but may be had, or els Gods truth & mercy to his Church fayleth, who hath ſaid that he wilbe with his Church to the end of the world.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth not by ſucceſſion to the Pope, Bbs. or Presbytery primarily, but is given to the body of the Church.

The ſeaventh Argument.

That doctryne which deſtroyeth it ſelf is falſe.

The doctryne of ſucceſſion, viz: that Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth by ſucceſſion to the pope, Bbs. or Presbytery, deſtroyeth it ſelf.

Therfor the doctryne of ſucceſſion is a falſe doctryne:

The minor I manifeſt thus: If the papiſts ſay truly that al eccleſiaſtical powre floweth from Chriſt to the Clergie though the pope, then why doth the college of Cardinalls make a pope by Election? & why doth not one pope make another pope before his death? Therfor Election overthroweth the ſucceſſion of the popes office: For the pope cannot both give Chriſts Miniſterial powre to the Clergie of Rome, & take the ſame miniſterial powre from the Cardinals by Election: but when the pope is dead, then is Chriſts miniſterial powre dead alſo in the popes perſon: & thus doth ſucceſſiō overthrow it ſelf in the pope: & by conſequent in the reſt: For Chriſts miniſterial powre being once interrupted in the pope, can never be recovred againe, but is vtterly loſt: & ſo the Church is abolished: For if the presbytery be loſt the Church is loſt: if the bbs. be loſt, the presbytery is loſt: if the pope be loſt the bbs. be loſt: if the pope be dead the pope is loſt: if the pope be loſt, Chriſts miniſterial powre is loſt: for if it be ſaid that the pope hath his powre by Election from the Cardinals thē ſucceſſion is deſtroyed: & ſo you may ſee evidently that ſucceſſion deſtroyeth it ſelf, ſeing Election muſt needes be interpoſed: Therfor indeed ther is no true ſucceſſion, but that of the old Teſtament, viz: by deſcent & genealogie: & this ſucceſſion which is pleaded for by ordination of precedent presbytery, bbs. pope is mans invention & deſtroyeth it ſelf, & therfor is a meer Antichriſtian deviſe.

But heer certayne objections muſt be anſwered for the further manifeſtation of the matter of ſucceſſion, & for ſactisfaction therein.

The firſt Objection.

Alchough the Miniſteriall powre of Chriſt be not given to the pope, & ſo perisheth not with him, yet it is given to the bbs, who are the Succeſſors of the Apoſtles in that Miniſteriall powre, and in the diſpenſation of it to the Miniſterie and Church: Seing therefore that ther is a certayne and vndoubted Succeſſion of bbs. from the Apoſtles dayes hetherto, one ordeyning another ſucceſſively, therefore though ſucceſſion be interrupted in the Pope whoſe miniſterial heads hip we renounce, yet it is continued in the Bbs. who are the Apoſtles ſucceſſors in diſpenſing this miniſterial pow…e to the miniſterie & Churches.

Anſwer to the firſt Objection.

This objection dependeth vppon an vncertanity, viz: That ther hath been a ſucceſſion of Bbs. one ordeyning another ſucceſſively frō Peter, Paul, Iames, through the Church of Rome, & the Greekes: & therfor I anſwer, that except they can shew the courte rowles (that I may ſo ſpeak) of the vndoubted ſucceſſive ordination from Peter, Paul. Iames, &c. I shal ſay vntounto al the Bbs. of England, as Nechemjah ſaid to the Preiſts, that could not shew ther ſucceſſion from Aaron by Genealogie. Nehem. 7: 64.65. Bicauſe their ſucceſſive ordination is not found, they shal be put from their Bishopricks, & they shal not adminiſter in the Bbs. office til their ariſe vp one as with Vrim & Thummim to divine vntounto vsus the truth of this matter: For we wil not beleeve the records of the Church of Rome, who alſo are defective in this particular, for though they have the ſucceſſion of Popes, yet not of other Bbs.

Further the vanity of this objection appeareth in this, that hereby they are vrged for the juſtifying of this Antichriſtian deviſe of ſucceſſion by ordination to go to the throne of Antichriſt, the popedome, to fetch their miniſterie thence, as if the true miniſterie off Chriſt could be in the falſe Church of Antichriſt: hereby alſo they do acknowledg Rome to be the true Church, their Sacrificing Preiſthood a true Miniſterie, orders a true Sacrament, the Euchariſt a true propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick & dead, prayers for the dead, & a thouſand ſuch abhominations, which are neceſſary dependances therevppon: They muſt alſo acknowledg themſelves Schiſmatiques from the Church of Rome, & are never able to anſwer the popish bookes, & the petitions of the Papiſts to the King, who object theſe and the like things againſt them.

The Second Objection.

Although the pope & Bbs have not Chriſts miniſterial powre given to them by ſucceſſion, yet the presbytery may have that powre by delegation from Chriſt, when their shal ariſe a company of true faithful teachers, who ſtanding out againſt the popedome, & prelacy, & al the abhominations therof: alſo renouncing al the corruptions of their ordination, & refining both the doctryne of faith, & the true calling of miniſters, from the droſſe of Antichriſtianiſme, doe yet notwithſtanding retayne the truth which they in the ſeate of Antichriſt had, as in the faith, ſo in the miniſtery: For Antichriſt had not …erly abolished, but only corrupted the Lords ordinances.

Anſwer to the ſecond Objection.

This objection dependeth vppon the former grounds, namely, that the Church of Rome is a true Church though corrupt, having a true miniſterie though corrupt, &c. of the reſt: For otherwiſe how can they plead ther miniſtery to be true from the Bbs. except they do acknowledg alſo the Bbs Miniſtery to be true receaved frō the Popedome: & the popish miniſterie to be true, for otherwiſe they muſt maintaine that a true miniſterie commeth from a falſe miniſterie, which is as impoſſible as to bring light out of darknes: So that this Objection is alſo anſwered in the former already, & needeth no further anſwer: yet nevertheleſſe I ſay vntounto the point that al the refining of the world can not bring a true miniſtery out of a Sacrificing Preiſthood: Or a true presbytery out of a falſe Antichriſtian prelacy: For as it was impoſſible for the preiſts of the Old Teſtament to ordeyne true Miniſters of the New Teſtament: So much more is it impoſſible for the falſe popish Sacrificing preiſthood, to ordeyne true miniſters of Chriſts true Church: For the Sacrificing preiſthood of Aarons Family was the Lords ordinance ſometyme, but the popish Sacrificing preiſthood in the mayne ſubſtantial parts therof, is not only mans device, but infinitely impious & blaſphemouſly derogating from the honour & dignity of Chriſts Sacrifice & preiſthood which is aparabatos intranſitive, Heb. 7.24. & according to the order of Melchiſedech: & ſeing the popish Sacrificing preiſthood is in the very eſſence of it falſe: how can the English prelacy, preiſthood, & Deaconry, which iſſued from that Romish preiſthood, be any other but a ſacrificing preiſthood? & although the English prelates have caſt away that eſſential Sacrificing property (or forme rather) of the Romish preiſthood, & have reduced it to a better temper, yet that wil not ſerve the turne: for al that they have in their prelacy, preiſthood, & Deaconry, they had frō Rome or els where: If from Rome then their prelacy, preiſthood, & Deaconry is abſolutely Romish & no other: if elswhere then their Succeſſion is gone: If both from Rome & els where let them declare that Ridle vntounto vsus.

The third Objection.

The presbyters may have ordination or impoſition of hands from the Romish preiſthood, & yet not their office: For that may come from heaven, or by ſome extraordinary meanes, even as the Lord raiſed vp ſome men extraordinarily in theſe laſt tymes to reſtore the truth of doctryne, & to reduce things to the Apoſtolique primitive inſtitution as amongſt others, Hus, Luther, & the reſt.

Anſwer to the third Objection.

It is ſtraunge that a man shal have impoſition of hands from one, & his office from another: Beſides it is contrary to the nature of Succeſſion, wherein the partie that ordeyneth giveth the office & miniſteriall powre to him that is ordeyned: for that it the thing that is pleaded, that Chriſts miniſteriall powre commeth by Succeſſion through ordination of precedent presbyters: It contradicteth their owne ground therefore to ſay, that impoſition of hands is from a popish preiſt, and the true office from ſome other meanes: But let vsus inquire what that other meanes may be: To ſay that Chriſts Miniſteriall powre is from heaven, is not denyed, but the queſtion is: What is the inſtrument or meanes which Chriſt hath appointed to conveigh that Miniſteriall powre vntounto man kind? And who are they that firſt receave it from Chriſts hand out of heaven: Or what is proton dektikon the firſt ſubject of this miniſterial powre: We ſay the Church or two or three faithful people Seperated frō the world & joyned together in a true covenant, have both Chriſt, the covenant, & promiſes, & the miniſterial powre of Chriſt given to them, & that they are the body that receave from Chriſts hand out of heaven, or rather from Chriſt their head this miniſterial powre: you ſay: not ſo: but this miniſterial powre commeth by ſucceſſion from the miniſtery which is the firſt ſubject of this powre, & that al this powre is derived from man to man, from the Apoſtles hands through al the Preiſts hands of Rome, & the Prelates hands of England to you Mr. Bern. & your line & pedigree of Preiſthood is lineally deſcended from Peter or Paul, &c. to you through ſo many generations of popish preiſts, as have ſucceded from Peters perſon to your perſon: Even as Annas & Cayaphas deſcended lineally from Aaron: only this is the difference, that the ſucceſſion of Annas & Cayaphas was by genealogie or generation, yours is by ſucceſſion of ordination or impoſition of hands: & therfor bicauſe you ſee that you fal vnderunder this foule abſurdity, that your Preiſthood muſt be of neceſſity of the ſame kind that the popish preiſthood is, you have invented a new trick to ſay that it commeth from heaven extraordinarily with Hus & Luther, and the reſt of thoſe glorious witneſſes which the Lord in theſe laſt tymes raiſed vp to the deſtruction of the man of ſinne: VVhichWhich if it be ſo: Then ſay I: shew your ſucceſſion from Luther, Hus, Prage, &c. Or els Nechemiah will putt you from your preiſthood.

The fourth Objection.

But every King in his dominions is appointed by Chriſt to be a head miniſterial to the Church, & al the Preiſts of that country do receave their miniſterial powre from the King by the ordination of the Bbs. vntounto whome the King hath committed the diſpenſation of that powre: ſo that the King being the Lords Lieftenant in his owne dominions, hath this miniſterial powre from Chriſt, the Bbs. from the King, the Preiſts from the Bbs. the Church from the Preiſts.

Anſwer to the fourth Objection.

If the King of every country hath Chriſts miniſterial powre given to him immediately from heaven, & that the Clergie of that nation have Chriſts miniſterial powre from the King, then theſe conſequents folow: which are intolerable abſurdities.

1. The King of every country is a perſon civil & Eccleſiaſtical, having al civil & eccleſiaſtical powre & that immediately from Chriſt.

2. The King of every country can preach, adminiſter the Sacraments, exerciſe Spirituall juriſdiction, excommunicate, &c.

3. The King of every country can make & ordeyne Miniſters.

4. The King of every country is a Pope or Patriarch in his owne territories and Dominions.

How theſe points wil agree with the Analogie of faith let every man judg, & ſo give ſentence whither this objection conteyne any the leaſt shew of truth in it, yea or nay.

Now what authority the Lord hath given every King in his owne dominions I leave to be deſcuſſed in his proper place, viz: in the 15. Section of this lettre to Mr. Bern.

The fifth Objection.

But the miniſtery is now extraordinarily raiſed vp: For as in the firſt planting of the Churches the Lord Ieſus vſed the extraordinary miniſtery of Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, to publish the Goſpel to the world, & to plant Churches, ſo after the Apoſtacy of Antichriſt, in the reſtoring of the truth the Lord vſeth the ſame extraordinary miniſterie not indued with thoſe extraordinary gifts which they had, but apointed by the L. for the ſame purpoſes, viz: the planting of true Churches & the revealing of his truth.

Anſwer to the fifth Objection.

Firſt the Miniſters of England, & namely you Mr. Ber. among the reſt, do not chalendg to be Apoſtles, Prophets, & Evangeliſts, but you ſay you are true presbyters, or Paſtors of particular true viſible Churches, & therfor this objection helpeth you nothing, if it were yeelded you:

Secondly, you cannot maintayne your ordinary miniſterie as ſucceding by ordination from theſe ſuppoſed, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts & Prophets, for then you muſt acknowledg the prelates of England to be Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, whereas they doe challendg no ſuch thing. But only maintayne themſelves to be ordinary Bbs. the ordinary Succeſſors of the Apoſtles, neither do they intend to make you miniſters as Apoſtles but as Bbs.

Thirdly, ther is none of the Reformiſts that ever I heard of that vndertake as Apoſtles Prophets, Evangeliſts, to ordeyne Elders.

Finaly, how can any of you be Apoſtles, Prophets, or Evangeliſts? who ſtand members of the aſſemblies in ſubjection to the prelates, whoſe Lords you are, if you be either Apoſtles, Prophets, or Evangeliſts: but you ſee they are your Lords: For either you are falſe Apoſtles, & falſe Prophets, or els by the evidence of the word & Spirit, you muſt riſe vp & ſtand out againſt & depoſe the prelates, whoſe authority you ſay is Antichriſtian: beſides that you muſt prove vntounto vsus by good & ſufficient warrant that the Lord raiſeth vp Apoſtles, prophets, & Evangeliſts, to overthrow Antichriſt, & to reſtore the true miniſterie: & that you who with al your might ſupport the Throne of the beaſt are thoſe Apoſtles, prophets, & Evangeliſts, whome the L. raiſeth vp for that purpoſe: which yet you never have done or attempted to do, & whither you can do or not I leave to the conſideration of al thoſe that ſearch after the truth.

Hetherto I have proved by ſufficient arguments negatively, that Chriſts Miniſteriall powre is not given by Chriſt primarily & by ſucceſſion, either to the pope, Bbs. or presbytery: whoſe claime dependeth vppon one & the ſame title, viz: Succeſſive ordination from the Apoſtles, through the Church of Rome to the hands of every preiſt or presbyter in England: & therfor the Miniſterial powre of Chriſt muſt needes be given primarily to the bodx of every viſible Church, though they be but two or three in nomber: For this is a ſufficient Enumeration of parts that Chriſts miniſterial powre is given primarily either to the Pope, Bbs. Presbytery or body of the Church: except that men wil ſay it is given to the King of every Kingdom, which is an abſurdity intollerable, as is already declared, & which I never heard pleaded for, & which the Kings of England doe renounce: But Chriſts miniſterial powre is not giuen by ſucceſſive ordination, either to the Pope, Bbs. or Presbytery primarily or originally: therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre is givē to the body of the Church, viz: to two or thre faithful people joyned together into an Eccleſiaſtical politique body by the true covenant, or new teſtament of Chriſt Ieſus. But bicauſe happily ſome perſons may be vnſatisfied, ſeing the former arguments are only grownded vppon reaſon, & not frō particular evidence of Scripture: Therfor I hold it neceſſary furthermore to confirme this truth of the L. by vndeniable growndes of Scripture, & that affirmatively as followeth.

The firſt Argument from Mat. 16.13-20.

From this place of Scripture I frame an argument after this manner.

Chriſts Diſciples are Chriſts Church, Mat. 16.13.18.

Chriſts miniſterial powre is given to Chriſts Diſciples.

Ergo: Chriſts miniſterial powre is given to Chriſts Church,

The Minor of this argument which only is doubtful I confirme thus.

That which was ſpoken & given to Peter, that was ſpoken & given to al the Diſciples of Chriſt, Mat. 16.13.14.19.

Chriſts miniſterial powre was vttered, & delivered to Peter, who ſpake for & in the name of the reſt, Mat. 16.13.15.16.18.19.

Ergo: Chriſts miniſterial powre was by ſpeech & indeed committed to all Chriſts Diſciples.

The Major of this argument only is controverſal which I manifeſt thus:

VntoUnto them did Chriſt ſpeake & commit his miniſterial powre that made the confesſion, viz: that Chriſt was that Chriſt, the Sonne of the living God.

But Peter & al the Diſciples by Peters mouth made that confeſſion, viz: that Chriſt was that Chriſt, the Sonne of the living God.

Ergo: VntoUnto all the Diſciples did Chriſt ſpeake, & give that his Miniſteriall powre.

The Minor being cleered the whole Argumēnt is evident: VVherfor conſider, 1. That Chriſt in the vsus. 13. asketh his Diſciples a queſtion, 2. In the vsus, 15. he ſaith whome do ye ſay that I am: by which it appeareth that Chriſt asketh this queſtion of all his Diſciples generally: and ſo it followeth by proportion neceſſarily that ſeing all were demaunded that queſtion therfor all made that anſwer & confeſſion: the argument is framed after this manner.

They anſwered & made the confeſſion vntounto whome Chriſt propounded the queſtion, or made the demaund.

But Chriſt propounded the queſtion or demaund to all his Diſciples, and not only to peter, or only to the twelve Apoſtles, as may be proved in the courſe of the text, vsus. 13-24.

Ergo: All the Diſciples anſwered & made the confeſſion ther mentioned by the Evangeliſt.

The Second Argument from Mat. 18.15-20. & 16.19.

From theſe places I reaſon after this manner.

That which is given to two or thre of Chriſts Diſciples, is given to the body of the Church, if they be many in nomber.

Chriſts Miniſteriall powre is given to two or three Diſciples of Chriſt.

Ergo: Chriſts miniſterial powre much more is givē to the body of the church being many in nomber.

The Major is without controverſie for iff Chriſts powre be given to two or three, then much more to twenty, thirtie, an hundreth, they being al of them Chriſts Diſciples.

The minor is proved after this manner:

The keies of the Kingdom of heaven, or the powre of binding & loſing, is given to two or three Diſciples of Chriſt.

Chriſts miniſterial powre is the keies of the Kingdom of heaven, or the powre of binding & loſing.

Ergo: Chriſts miniſteriall powre is given to two or three Diſciples off Chriſt.

The minor being evident, the major may thus be confirmed.

VntoUnto them doth Chriſt give the keies of the kingdom of heaven, or powre of binding & loſing to whome & of whome he ſpeaketh:

But Chriſt ſpeaketh to Diſeiples, & of brethren.

Ergo: the keies of the Kingdom of heaven, or powre of binding & loſing, is givē by Chriſt to the Diſciples or brethren.

The minor, viz: that Chriſt ſpeaketh to Diſciples & of brethren, is manifeſt by divers particular, vsus. 1.15.21. The Diſciples move a queſtion vntounto Chriſt, concerning the Kingdom of heaven: & Chriſt teacheth vntounto them, vsus. 15. that the litle ones, that is the brethrē & the Diſciples muſt not be offēded: or if they go aſtray & be loſt, they should be ſought againe, & vsus. 15-17. teacheth the dutyes of admonition in the degrees therof for the winning of our brethren, & perſerving of them from going aſtray: therfor vsus. 18. he ſpeaketh of brethren & Diſciples, attributing to them the powre of binding & loſing, & vsus. 19. promiſing the hearing of their prayers, & vsus. 20. promiſing to them his preſence, if they be but three or two, & vsus. 21.22. teaching them remiſſion of offences private, vntounto ſeaventy tyme ſeaven tymes: VVherevppon I ground this infallible argument.

Iff the whole ſcope & intent of this place, Mat. 18.15-20. compared with Mat. 16.13-20. doth ayme at the Diſciples of Chriſt, or the brethren, Mat. 23.8. teaching that binding and loſing, the keies of the Kingdom of heaven, Chriſts preſence, & acceptance of their prayers, &c. aperteyneth to them: then Chriſts miniſterial powre is given to the Diſciples or brethren, if but three or two, & ſo much more if they be a multitude.

But the whole ſcope of theſe places is directed to the Diſciples or brethren: Teaching that offences muſt be avoyded among them: Loſt or wandring sheep muſt be ſought out: brethren impenieent muſt be bound: & penitent loſed: That they have the powre of binding & loſing on earth: That Chriſt promiſeth to them his preſence & acceptance, that they muſt til 70. tymes 7. tymes remit offences private &c.

Ergo: Chriſts miniſterial powre is given to the Diſciples or brethren, if they be but three or two, & ſo much more if they be a multitude.

The third Argument from Mat. 28.16-20.

From this place of Scripture I reaſon after this manner.

To whome preaching & baptizing is committed, to them the powre of binding & loſing is given.

Powre to preach & baptize is given to the Diſciples of Chriſt, or to the brethrē, or to the body of the Church.

Ergo: powre to bind & loſe, that is Chriſts miniſterial powre is given to the diſciples, or brethren, or the body of the Church.

The Major of this argument is true by proportion of parity: For by one & the ſame powre, doth the Church, preach, pray, baptize, adminiſter the L. Supper, excommunicate, abſolve, &c. viz: by the miniſterial powre of Chriſt: & therfor if the body of the church being more or fewer have powre to preach & baptize, they have powre to bind & loſe: The rather conſidering that preaching the Goſpel is a mayne part of binding & loſing of men to & from their ſinnes, & a principal part of the powre of the keyes in shutting & opening heaven gates to the impenitent or penitent ſinners.

The Minor of this argument may be confirmed by this reaſon.

To whome Chriſt promiſeth his preſence to the worldes end: To them he giveth powre to preach & baptize.

But to his Diſcipls Chriſt promiſeth his preſence to the worldes end, even to two or three gathered together into his name: Mat. 18.20. & 28.20. yea to any Seperated people. 2. Cor. 6.16-18.

Ergo: To his Diſciples, to two or thre gathered togēther into his name, doth he give powre to preach & baptize.

The fourth argument from Marc. 13.33-37.

From this place of Scripture I frame an Argument thus:

Chriſts Servants have Chriſts authority:

Chriſts viſible Church, or two or three faithful people are Chriſts Servants.

Ergo: Chriſts viſible Church hath Chriſts authority.

Heer by the way may be noted that in this place Marc. 13.34. Chriſt giveth authority to his Servants: But Mat. 28.18. Chriſt receaveth authority or powre from his Father, evē al the powre in heaven & earth, wherby wee may collect that which was before affirmed that Chriſts powre is donble, 1. that powre Monarchicall which is inherent in his owne perſon, & is incommunicable to any creature, 2. That powre Miniſteriall which he delegateth to his Servants, to his Diſciples, to two or three faithfull people whereſoever.

But concerning the argument if it be objected that Chriſts Servants are the Apoſtles, & their Succeſſors: I deny it: For ther is a diſtinction made between the Servants & the Porter: Now the authority is given generally to the Servants of the howſe, & watching is ſpecially enjoyned to the Porter: & if it be any thing that the Apoſtles & their Suciceſſors have, it is watching by way of office, for ſo the porter is to wach: & yet that duty alſo is particularly applyed & injoyned to every one vſus. 37.

The fifth Argument, from Ioh. 20.18-24. & Luk. 24.35-53.

From theſe places of Scripture compared together I collect this argument.

If Chriſts Miniſterial powre of binding & loſing be given to Marie Magdalene, & Cleopas, joyntly with the reſt of the Diſciples of Chriſt: Then it is given to the body of the Church.

But powre of binding & loſing, remitting & retayning ſinnes is givē to Marie Magdalene, & Cleopas, joyntly with the reſt of Chriſts Diſciples.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre of binding & loſing, or remitting & retayning ſinnes is given to the body of the Church.

The Minor of this argument may eaſily be proved by comparing the two former places of Seripture together: For in Luke Cleopas & the other Diſciple brought tidings off Chriſts Reſurection to the eleven, & others that were with them: Luke. 24.33.34.36. VVhence it is evident that Cleopas, the other Diſciple, the eleven, & others were together: This day was the firſt day of the weeke, vſus. 23.33.36. Even that very day wherein Chriſt aroſe: Now vppon this day Chriſt ſpake thoſe wordes, & gave the powre of remitting & retayning ſinnes vntounto al the Diſciples, not only to the eleven, but to Cleopas, Marie Magdaſene, & others aſſembled together that night when Chriſt appeared to them al together jointly in the howſe, Joh. 20.23.

The ſixth Argument. from Act. 2.39. & 3.25. compared with Rom. 4.11.12. & Gal. 3.7.9.14.15.

From theſe places of Scripture compared together I frame this argument.

VntoUnto whom the promiſes, the covenant, the bleſſing is given, vntounto them the miniſterial powre of Chriſt, viz: the powre of binding & loſing is given.

But the promiſes, the covenant, the bleſſing is given to the poſterity of Abraham, according to the faith, that is to al the faithful, who are indeed the true children of Abraham, Ioh. 8.39.

Ergo: Chriſts miniſteriall powre, viz: The powre of binding & loſing is given to the faithful: That is to two or three faithfull people which are a true body vntounto Chriſt,

The conſequent of this argument only is doubtful: For cleering whereof wee muſt know that the keies of the Kingdom of heaven is a promiſe which Chriſt maketh to his Church, Mat. 16.19. wherin the cheef part of the comfort of the Church conſiſteth: it is alſo one principal part of the covenant or new Teſtament which Chriſt hath eſtablished by his blood & purchaſed for his Church, which is ſealed vp vntounto the Church in adminiſtring & pertaking in the ſeales of the covenant: it is alſo a ſpecial part of the bleſſing by the ſame reaſon: For the bleſſing is this: That they that bleſſe the Church & faithful shal be bleſſed: & they that curſe the Church shalbe curſed: Geneſ. 12.3. alſo remiſſion of ſins is a part of the bleſſing, Rom. 4.7.8. & binding & loſing is remitting or tetayning ſinne, bleſſing & curſing, as is moſt evident. So that ſeing that powre of binding & loſing, remitting & retayning ſinne, is a part of the promiſe, covenant, & bleſſing, therfor the faithfull having the covenant, promiſe, & bleſſing given to thē, they have alſo therwith the powre of binding & loſing, that is Chriſts miniſterial powre, & therfor the conſequent of this argument is fume & the vndoubted truth of God.

The ſeaventh Argument from Eſa. 9.6. Ioh. 3.16. Ioh. 13.13. Act. 2.36. & 3.22.23. Luk. 2.11.

From theſe places of Scripture compared together I reaſon thus.

VntoUnto whom Chriſt is given to be King, Preiſt, & Prophet, directly & immediately: vntounto them is Chriſts miniſteriall powre given, viz: powre of binding & loſing.

But Chriſt is given as King, Preiſt, & Prophet, directly & immediately to two or three faithful people whereſoever living together in the world.

Therfor Chriſts miniſterial powre of binding & loſing is alſo given vntounto two or thre faithful ones whereſoever joyned together in the world.

The conſequent of this argument only is doubtfull which may thus moſt manifeſtly be confirmed & expoundēd: when Chriſt is given, then with Chriſt al things els are given, Rom. 8.32. Chriſt I ſay with al his apurtenances: when Chriſt the King is given to the faithful, then Chriſts Kingdom is given vntounto them, then have they Chriſts powre to adminiſter that Kingdom according to his direction: when Chriſt the Preiſt is given to the faithful, then Chriſts Sacrifice is given vntounto them, & powre to adminiſter al the efficacy of his Preiſthood vntounto the Saynts according to his direction: when Chriſt the Prophett is given to the faythful, then Chriſts Propheſy, or the Holy doctryne of Salvation is givē to the Church, with powre for the diſpenſing therof according to his owne ordinance: b… reaſon wherof the Saynts are ſaid to have an anoynting or Chriſma from him that is Holy, 1. Ioh. 2.20. & therfor are called Chriſtians, Act. 11.26. being anoynted to be Kings … Pre…ſts vntounto God, Revel. 1.6. & Prophets, Act. 2.17.18. Seing then that by Chriſt the … Preſt, & Prophet who is given to the Saints, the Saynts are made, Kings, Preiſts, & P…phets, therfor as Kings they have a miniſterial powre given them of binding & loſing, … ſo …orth of the reſt.

The eight Argument from Mat. 18.15-20. compared with 1. Cor. 5.4.5. Mat. 6.12. Luk. 17.3.

…n theſe places of Scripture I collect this argument.

If one brother hath powre to retayne the ſinnes of a brother impenitent privately, & to remit the ſinnes of a brother penitent privately: then a communion of faithful men have powre to retaine the ſinnes of an impenitent member publiquely, & to remit the ſinnes of one that is penitent publiquely.

But one brother hath powre, given him by Chriſt to retayne the ſinnes of a brother privately impenitent, and to remitt the ſinnes of a brother privately penitent.

Ergo: a communion of faithfull people have powre to retayne the ſinnes of a member publiquely impenitent, & to remit the ſinnes of a brother publiquely penitent.

To the ſame ſenſe the argument may be framed after this manner.

If witneſſes admonishing a brother have powre given them by Chriſt to retaine the ſinnes of a brother impenitent before witneſſe & to remit the ſinnes of a brother penitent before witneſſe▪ then a communiō of faithful men have powre to retain the ſinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent, or to remit the ſinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance.

But witneſſes admonishing a brother, have powre from Chriſt to retayne the ſinnes of a brother impenitent before witneſſe, & to remit the ſinnes of a brother penitent before witneſſe.

Ergo: a communion of faithful men have powre to retayne the ſinnes of a brother publiquely impenitent, or to remit the ſinnes of a brother publiquely declaring his repentance.

The premiſſes of both thoſe arguments are evident out of Mathew & Luke: & the concluſion is the Apoſtles direction to the Corinths.

The ninth Argument from Eph, 5.30.32. & 1.22.23. Revel. 21.2. & 22.17.

From theſe Scriptures compared together I draw this argument.

The wife hath powre immediately from her husband, & the body hath powre immediately from the head.

The viſible Church or a communion of faithful people, are Chriſts ſpowſe, the wiſe of the lamb, & Chriſt myſtical body.

Ergo the viſible Church or a communion of faithful ones have Chriſts miniſteriall powre immediately from him.

Againe: As the body hath life, ſenſe, motion & powre from the head, the hands & feet have powre from the body: So the Church hath powre from Chriſt the head, the members of the Church as the Elders & Deacons have powre from the Church.

But it is true in nature, that the body hath life, ſence, motion & powre frō the head: & al the members have powre from the body.

Ergo: the Church hath powre from Chriſt the head: the members of the Church, viz: the Elders & Deacons have powre from the Church.

By al which arguments put together it appeareth moſt evidently that Chriſts miniſteriall powre of binding & loſing is given to the body of eyery true viſible Church, and that all the Officers of the Church have their powre and authority to adminiſter derived vntounto them from Chriſt through the body of the Church where they adminiſter.

And thus have I proved evidently as I take it both that Chriſts miniſterial powre commeth not by ſucceſſive ordination by the hands of the miniſtery: & that it is immediately given to the body of the Church.

And heer for your further informacion Mr. Bern. I wish you to take notice that ſucceſſion is a typical ordinance of the Old Teſtament, & therfor abolished by Chriſts comming: For the Apoſtle wisheth vsus to take heed of Iewish Fables & Genealogies. 1. Tim. 1 4. Tit. 1.14. bicauſe theſe genealogies were of neceſſity for the carnal ordinances of the old Teſtament, but the Spiritual genealogie & ſucceſſion is for the new teſtament: In the old Teſtament they had carnal parents a carnal ſeed, carnal children, carnal cſrcumciſion, carnal commaundemēts, a carnal temple, a carnal cittie, a carnal preiſthood, a carnal Kingdom: in the new Teſtament we have ſpiritual parents, a ſpiritual ſeed which is the word, ſpiritual children, viz: the faithful, circumciſion made without hands, ſpiritual commaundements, a ſpiritual temple, an heavenly cittie, ſpiritual Preiſts & Kings, & a ſpiritual kingdom & preiſthood: Therfor ſucceſſion in the old Teſtament was carnal by genealogie: if you therfor wil ſet vp a carnal ſucceſſion in the new Teſtament by ordination for the miniſtery, you muſt do it alſo, 1. For the Church, & ſo fetch it from Rome, 2. For the baptiſme, & ſo fetch it from Rome, 3. For the L. Supper, & ſo fetch it from Rome, 4. For the Faith, & ſo fetch it from Rome, 5. For excommunication, & ſo fetch it from Rome: & ſo forth of the reſt, & this is to tie all Churches to the vnity & ſucceſſion of the chayre of Rome, as in the old Teſtament al were tyed to the vnity & ſucceſſion of the temple at Ieruſalem: Herin therfor you ſee how you vanish away in your jmaginations by ſetting vp ſucceſſion, approving your ſelf before you be aware a Iew, a Papiſt, an Antichriſtian: this shal ſuffice for the matter of ordination or ſucceſſion, wherby it apeareth to be a Iewish Popish, & Antichriſtian deviſe.

In the next place let vsus heer your nine reaſons Mr, Bernard which you bring to confute this our faith, and moſt evident truth of God: wher firſt in generall note that wee doe not deny, but that the powre of the Church is for order ſake committed into ſome particular perſons hands, who in the Churches name, & for the Churches good, & in the Churches preſence are to handle al Church matters, & therfor whereas your 9-reaſons are brought againſt popularity as you cal it, you are to remēber that Chriſts church in ſeveral reſpects is a Monarchie, an Ariſtocraty, a Democratie. In reſpect of Chriſt the King it is a Monarchy, of the Eldership an Ariſtocratie, of the brethren joyntly a Democratie or Popular government: For Chriſt the King he ruleth by his owne lawes & Officers: The body of the Church, the ſpowſe of Chriſt ruleth as the wiſe vnderunder the huſband, according to the wil & appointment of her husband: The Elders rule as the ſtewards of Chriſt the King, & of the church which is the wiſe or ſpowſe of the King: Now as it is vnreaſonable to appoint the ſteward or Servant of the King either over the King himſelf, or over the Queen who is the Kings wife: So is it Antichriſtian to place the Elders as Rulers over the whole body of the Church, although every particular perſon and cauſe is ſubject to be ordered by that authority which the Church joyntly receaved from Chriſt, and delegateth to them: wee ſay therefore that the body of the Church hath all powre immediately from Chriſt: and the Elders have al their powre from the body of the Church, which powre of the Eldership is not exercized, nor can not be vſed over or againſt the whole body of the Church, for that is an Antichriſtian vſurpation: but only it is exerciſed over and againſt particular perſons and diſorders ariſing in the Church, the Eldership herein dealing for the body in the publique workes thereof: breefly therefore to anſwer in generall to all your nine reaſons, vſed againſt popularity, wee diſpute not whither the Elders muſt rule or not, but wee diſpute who have the negative voice in their hands, or who have the determining powre in them: or who give the definitive ſentence in al matters: VVee ſay that the definitive ſentence the determining powre, the negative voice is in the body of the church, not in the Elders: yet we ſay the Elders are to lead & governe al perſons & cauſes of the Church, but to lead & governe contrary to the definition & voice of the body that we deny, & that we ſay is Antichriſtian.

Your firſt reaſon Mr. Bernard is that popularity is contrary to Gods order vnderunder the law and before the law, vnderunder the law the powre of Governing was in the Levites: befor the law it was in the firſt borne, & this governing powre was not receaved from the people vnderunder the law, but from the Lord by Moſes: but the people only approved the Lords appointment.

I anſwer: The firſt borne and ſo by conſequent the Levites did type two things, 1. That Priviledg and prerogative which Chriſt Ieſus hath, who is the firſt borne having the preeminence in all things, Coloſ. 1.18.1, Cor. 15.20. Revel. 1.5. For Chriſt is the firſt & moſt noble in the Church, even the head, & Fountayne of al heavenly grace & excellency: 2. The firſt borne and ſo by conſequent the Levites did shadow out the church. Exod. 4.22.23. who is the firſt borne of al the men of the earth moſt deere and pretious to the Lord: So that this reaſon of yours may thus be retorted vppon your ſelſf.

If the firſt borne before the law, & the Levites for the firſt borne vnderunder the law, had the preheminence: then Chriſt, & the viſible Church which were shadowed out by the firſt borne, & by the Levites, have the preminence & powre in the new Teſtament.

But the firſt borne before the law, & the Levites for the firſt borne vnderunder the law had the powre & preheminence: by your owne confeſſion.

Ergo: Chriſt & the viſible church from Chriſt, shadowed out by the firſt borne & the Levites, have the powre & preheminence in the new Teſtament.

Remember for this particular that the firſt borne, the firſt Fruites, the Preiſts, Levites, Rings & Princes of Iudah did al type forth vntounto vsus in the new teſtamēt the viſible church & the Saints next vnderunder Chriſt who is the head to the body of the Church as theſe ſcriptures do manifeſtly declare, 1. Pet. 2.5: 9. Revel. 1.5, 6. Col. 1.18. 1. Cor. 15.20.

The ſecond of your nine reaſons againſt popularity is that it is without warrant in the Apoſtles tyme: The Apoſtles alwayes begune, continued and compoſed church matters, the body of the congregation were only made acquaynted with matters, aliberty granted them to choſe officers, but they did never make any themſelves: nor attēpted any thing of themſelves.

This argument Mr. Bern. is partly vntrue, partly againſt your ſelf: Vntrue it is thus far forth that you ſay the body of the congregation never attempted any thing without Elders: For I demaund of you: what did the 120. perſons in the firſt of the acts, did they not chuſe an Apoſtle into office & ordeyne him? but they had no Elders as yet: for the holy Ghoſt was not come downe vppon them, & ſo the… were no Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, Paſtors & Teachers. Eph. 4.8.11? did not the Churches of Lyſtra, Iconium, & Antiochia think you worship God, admonish & excommunicate, during the tyme of the Apoſtles abſence from them, when as yet they had no Elders, Act. 14 21-23? did not the Churches in Creta think you worship God, & governe in the abſence of the Apoſtles & Titus when as yet Elders were not appointed, Tit. 1▪ 5. you cannot deny that the Churches were eſtablished before they had officers: if you do the Apoſtle ſaith that they that are to be choſen Elders, muſt not be newly planted into the faith, 1. Tim. 3.6. & ſo by conſequent from the tyme of eſtablishing Churches til Election of officers, ther muſt needes be a ſpace of tyme for tryal of mens gifts & converſation & conſtancy in the faith during which tyme the Apoſtles being abſent from the Churches, I make no doubt, but they did worship God, & performe the other parts of their Spiritual communion: it they did ſo, then I ſay, look how many Churches were eſtablished by the Apoſtles: So many examples ther are of the congregation attempting every thing almoſt, without Elders: & ſo the Second reaſon of yours conteyneth ſo many vntruths as ther were Churches planted by the Apoſtles in the Acts, who did not the firſt day of their planting inſtitute their Elderships, but ſome certayne competent ſpace of tyme afterward, wherin ther might be ſufficient tryal▪ & knowledg of mens gifts & qualifications fit for office: & this may ſuffice for your vntruths.

Now further your reaſon is againſt your ſelf in this particular wherein you yeeld the cauſe, that the body of the congregation had a liberty to choſe their officers: whence I reaſon thus againſt you.

They that have liberty to choſe their owne officers, & to worship God publiquely before they have officers: they have al the reſt of Chriſts powre miniſterial befor they have officers.

But the body of every congregation hath powre to worship God publiquely (as you ſee) & have liberty to choſe their owne officers (as you confeſſe) & yet want Elders.

Ergo: the body of every congregation hath al the reſt of Chriſts miniſterial powre before they have officers.

I ſay the body of the Church hath powre: which powre commeth after into act & execution when her officers are choſen, viz: The powre of baptizing & adminiſtring the Lords Supper: & yet it may alſo be queſtioned whither the Church may not as well adminiſter the Seales of the covenant before they have Officers, as Pray, Propheſy, Elect Officers and the reſt, ſeing that to put the Seales to the covenant is not a greater work then publishing the covenant, or Election of officers, or excommunication.

The third of your 9. reaſons againſt popularity is that it is againſt Chriſts commiſſion granted to the Apoſtles & their Succeſſors, as Timothie, Titus, & the cheef miniſters of the Goſpel: & that therfor the place 1. Cor. 5.4. muſt be expounded of the Elders as you ſay the Apoſtle sheweth, 1. Cor. 2.6.

Wel Mr. Bern. this is old ruſty rotten popish ſtuffe even as auncient as the Church of Antichriſt ſome of it, viz: that of ſucceſſion: which hath already receaved anſwer, & the contrary been proved at large in this Section whither I referre you.

But heer are certaine vntruths avouched by you which muſt be anſwered, viz: one is: that Chriſts commiſſion was granted only to the Apoſtles, & their Succeſſors: I have proved already in the former reaſons that the commiſſion was given to the body of the Church expounding thoſe foure places which you quote, viz: Mat. 28.19. & 16.19. Iohn. 20.21-23. Marc. 13.34. which alſo is further clee…ed, for that the twelve were not yet Apoſtles, but only nominated to the office, for they were indued with powre frō on high vppon the day of Pentecoſt, Luk. 24.49. compared with Act. 2.4. Eph, 4.8.11. as alſo for that Cleopas, Mary Magdalene, & others beſides the eleven were preſent when the commiſſion was given vntounto the Diſciples, finally bicauſe the Apoſtles were the Church repreſentative, yea every one of them: having in them powre to performe al the offices of al officers, & members of the Church: & the Church only is the true Succeſſor of the Apoſtles, & no one man o… Miniſter whatſoever, ſeing no one perſon hath powre to performe al offices of all officers and members, which notwithſtanding the whole Church joyntly hath.

A ſecond vntruth is this, that you ſay the Apoſtles committed that commiſſion given them by Chriſt not to the body of the Church, but to Timothie, Titus, & ther ſucceſſors as appeareth 1. Tim. 6.13.14. as you ſay: wherto I anſwer that the Apoſtles leave the powre which they receaved from Chriſt joyntly with the reſt of the Diſciples, in the hands of the Church not of Timothie & Titus only, & that chardg which Paul giveth to Timothie reſpecteth the whole Epiſtle and all the contents thereof which aperteyne to all ſorts of perſons in the Church aswell as to Timothie, as may be ſeen in the whole ſecond Chapter: & how prove you that Timothy an Evangeliſt Succeeded Paull an Apoſtle? Or that the Elders of Epheſus ſucceded Timothie an Evangeliſt?

A third vntruth is this, that you ſay the place 1. Cor. 5.4.13. muſt be vnderſtood of Elders as you ſay may appeare, 1. Cor. 2.6. wherto I anſwer that this is a prety trick, but it wil not ſerve your turne, to turne away the truth & evidence to this place: For firſt the Epiſtle is written to the whole body of the Church, al the circumſtances of the Chap. 5. teach that the whole body was leavened, & that their rejoycing was not good, & that they ought not to be mingled with the brethren that were fornicators, & that they ought not to eate the L. Supper with ſuch perſons: that they have powre to judg them that are within, & that they muſt caſt out from among them that inceſtuous perſon: & whereas you would needes by one phraſe (viz: the rebuke of many, 2. Cor. 2.6.) expound this general as ſpoken of many Elders not many brethren, I ſay herein you coyne a falſe expoſition: For doth it follow that bicauſe the rebuke was delivered by many either brethren or Elders who are to leade in al publique actions, therfor the Apoſtle enjoyneth the Elders only to excommunicate? or bicauſe ſome only pronounce the rebuke, & the ſentence of excommunication, therfor they only have powre to decree it? I deſire you would make theſe conſequents hang or depend neceſſarily vppon ther antecedents or els you doe but wreſt the Scriptures to your deſtruction: beſides that place, 2. Cor. 2.6. doth not teach who either decreed or pronounced his excommunication, but only who rebuked him for his ſinne which were many (Elders if you will:) For I take it the place is manifeſt that he was not excommunicate, bicauſe he repented vppon the reproof: which the Apoſtle ſaith is ſufficient. And ſometyme in the Scripture many, ſignifieth all: & all ſignifieth many: as theſe places declare, Matt. 3.5. Roman. 5.18.19. Therefore this quirck off yours is but a meer Sophiſticall cavill to put of the truth.

The fourth of your 9. reaſons againſt popularity is that the place of Epheſ. 4.11.12. is againſt it, for ther the Apoſtle declareth (ſay you) that gifts for the miniſterie are given to the Miniſters for the Church, not to the Church for the Miniſters: and that therefore the powre of Chriſt is not given to the body of the Church, but only to the Elders: & this you shew by a ſimilie from the parts of the body which do not receave their qualityes, facultyes, or gifts from the body, but from God.

To this reaſon I anſwer: that you declare your ſelf to be either blind or willfully to shut your eyes againſt the truth & evidence of this place: For it is as cleer as the shining of the Sunne in the Firmament of heaven againſt your expoſition & objection: For I pray you in good ſooth doth this argument follow, viz: Chriſt giveth gifts vntounto mē not by the mediation of the body of the Church: therfor Chriſt giveth his miniſterial powre to the officers, & not to the body? yet this is the force of your argument, which may for more evidence be framed thus.

If Chriſt give gifts to the officers of the Church, not by the Church, but immediately by & from himſelf: Then Chriſt giveth powre of binding & loſing to the officers of the Church, not by the meanes of the church, but by ſuch meanes as God hath appointed: (that is as I geſſe by Succeſſion.)

But you ſay the Antecedent is true by the place of the Eph, 4.

And I ſay the conſequent or concluſion followeth not vppon the antecedent: but it is meerly aſyllogiſton.

But I will declare the inconſequence more fully: The Lord he giveth gifts to men either ordinarily or extraordinarily: Extraordinarily he gave gifts to men in the primitive Churches: Ordinarily he giveth gifts to men by ſtudy, & paynes, & by nature, ſo he gave the gifts of Tongs and Propheſy extraordinarily to the primittive Churches, be giveth the ſame gifts now ordinarily by meanes of Study and the help of naturall witt: How will it follow that bicauſe the Lord gave gifts, therefore he gave his Miniſteriall powre extraordinarily from heaven? VVhy? you confeſſe that powre of binding and loſing was given before Chriſts aſcenſion, but now you would prove by this place Epheſ. 4. that the powre of binding & loſing is given after Chriſts aſſenſion, and that theſe gifts and this powre are given together: is not this to contradict your ſelf? hereby you ſee the weakenes of your reaſon: For you muſt diſtinguish betwixt the powre of binding and loſing which the Diſciples had committed vntounto them before Chriſts aſcenſion: and betwixt the gifts of the day of Pentecoſt.

But what are thoſe gifts mentioned in that place of Epheſ. 4.8.11.12. and vntounto whome are thoſe gifts given? I will declare it vntounto you, and ſo your mouth shalbe …opt.

Theſe gifts which are ſaid to be given to men are thoſe foure ſorts of Officers which the Apoſtle mentioneth vſus. 11. Apoſtles, Prophets, Evangeliſts, Paſtors & Teachers, for the two laſt are one office. Theſe officers with their gifts are ſaid to be given to men: who are theſe men vntounto whome theſe officers with their gifts are givē? are they not the Church? is not the office of an Elder, Paſtor, or Teacher the L. gift to the Church? This place you ſee therefore is moſt pregnant againſt your opinion: as may appeare thus,

That which is given by Chriſt to the Church is in the powre & poſſeſſion of the Church.

The officers & offices of the Church are given to the Church.

Ergo: the officers & offices of the Church are in the powre & poſſeſſion of the Church.

Wherfor I ſay vntounto you that the gifts of preaching, adminiſtration of the Sacraments & Governing, are given vntounto ſome mē, but the office & officers indued with theſe gifts are given vntounto the Church, who have powre to appoint them to their office, & who do receave both their office & powre to adminiſter in their office from the Church, vntounto whome the office & powre of Chriſt is given primarily, being the next Lord therof vnderunder Chriſt the Monarch.

And for your ſimilie of the parts receaving their properties from God: not from the body, it is perverſly applyed: For this is the true vſe and application of the ſimilie: as the head communicateth all the powre & facultie which any part hath from it ſelf, to that part by the body: ſo the head Chriſt communicated his powre to the parts and officers of the Church by the body of the Church: which is Chriſt myſticall: I confeſſe ſome parts of the body have ſome ſpecial properties and qualities which they receave not from the head: as the Stomach hath the quality Chilificandi, the liver Sangnificandi, &c. not from the head, but the powre and faculty to vſe the property it hath from the head: So ſome members of the Church have ſpecial gifts given them of God, but the powre of vſing thoſe gifts they have from the head Chriſt by the meanes of the body, which is the pipe that from the Fountaine conveigheth all powre Eccleſiaſtical to every officer.

The Fifth of your 9. reaſons againſt popularity is that the Scripture doth not lay the Government vppon the people, nor reproveth them for ſuſſering abuſe of Holy things: but vppon the governors civil & Eccleſiaſtical, Ezech. 22.26. 1. Sam. 2, 17. 1. King. 13. Mat 23. Revel. 2.1.8.12.18. & 3.17.14.

I anſwer breefly from the Type to the truth concerning matters of the Old Teſtament: Seing now the Saynts are all of them made Kings and Preiſts vntounto God Revelat. 1.6. Or as the Apoſtle Peter ſaith: Baſileion hierateuma, 1. Pet. 2.9. a Kingly Preiſthood: Therefore now in the New Teſtament the Saynts ſucceede in the place of the Kings and Preiſts of the Old Teſtament in Eccleſiaſticall cauſſes: and as they were burdened with Government and reproof for profanation of holy things: ſo are the Saynts the members of the viſible Church, now burdened with Government Eccleſiaſticall, and reproof for violating the Holy things committed to their cuſtody & fidelity: & therfor I reaſon from your owne confeſſion againſt you thus,

If Kings & Preiſts in the Old Teſtament were chardged with Government, and blamed for violation of holy things: Then in the New Teſtament the Saints (who are Kings? & Preiſts) are chardged with government, & blamed for violation of Holy things.

But Kings & Preiſtts in the old Teſtament were chardged with government, & blamed for violation of Holy things.

Therfor the Saints in the new Teſtament are chardged with government eccleſiaſtical, & blamed for violation of Holy things.

And thus you ſee Mr. Ber. how your owne weapon entreth into your owne bowels: & concerning the places of the Revelation that the Aungels of the ſeaven Churches were chardged with government, & blamed for abuſe of the Holy things & not the body of the Church, I ſay herein you vtter foule vntruths: For Chap. 1. vsus. 4-7. the Apoſtle witeth to the 7. Churches of Aſia, & wisheth grace & peace to the Churches & all the members of the Churches: & Chap. 2.11. & at the end of every Epiſtle, the Apoſtle maketh application of every Epiſtle to al that have eares, & to the particular Churches: wher for I wonder at your shameleſſe ignorance that should thus falſely belye the Scriptures, & abuſe the reader: To turne the point of this reaſon of yours alſo vppon your ſelf, I ſay thus.

If Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with gouernment & abuſe of holy things (though the meſſage be ſent to the aungel to be published to the whole church) then the whole churches are charged therwith, viz: with government & violatiō of holy things.

But Iohn chardgeth the whole Churches with the government & abuſe of Holy things: (though the meſſage be ſent to the Aungel of every Church, to be published to the whole Church.)

Therfor the whole Churches are chardged with the government & violation of the holy things.

Thus much breefly concerning your fifth reaſon: & heer you make a digreſſion to prove vntounto vsus that Matt. 18.17, Tell the Church muſt be expounded: Tel the Governors: For confirmation whereof you bring vsus ſeaven reaſons which I will handle in order.

Your firſt reaſon to prove that: Tel the Church is Tel the Governors, is this: for that otherwiſe Chriſt could not be vnderſtood, for if he had brought in a ſtrange courſe not heard of before, nor then practiſed, no man could vnderſtand his meaning: Seing therfor before then & after the practiſe was to tel to the Elders or governors: therfor tel to the Church is tel to the Governors or Elders.

A las for you Mr. Bern. this is borrowed ſtuffe, & yet ſtark naught: For it is but froth & chaffe: & what is the chaffe to the wheat? Do not you think that the whole Goſpell is a myſtery which was kept ſecreat from the beginning of the world & is not the viſible Church of the new Teſtament with all the ordinances thereof, the cheef & principal part of the Goſpel? & therfor, ſeing this ordinance of telling the Church is a part of the Goſpel, it was formerly hidden & myſtical, & now it was revealed plainly by Chriſt: & although happily the Diſciples vnderſtood not Chriſts meaning at that preſent, yet after ward the Holy Ghoſt brought that & many other neceſſary things which they eyther vnderſtood not Chriſts meaning at that preſent, yet afterward the Holy Ghoſt brought that & many other neceſſary things which they either vnderſtood not or forgot, to their knowledg & memory as the Scripture witneſſeth: But further I ſay that particular was obſcurely ſignified by the Typical King and Preiſts in the Old Teſtament vntounto whome the Government was committed, as I have already more then once declared vntounto you: & further the government was then given to al Chriſts Diſciples by commiſſion as I have already proved ſufficiently to your conſcience & the conſcience of all that love the truth in ſincerity.

That of the excommunication of the blind man Ioh. 9.22. was a deviſe of the Iewes, for ther is no warrant for it in al the law: & if it were the L. ordinance, it typeth vntounto vsus thus much that the viſible Church ſucceeding in the place of the typical Kings & preiſts have in their hands the powre of excommunication.

And although Cloe made complaint to the Governor yet it is nothing to the purpoſe: For Cloe complayneth of an whole Church to an Apoſtle: not of a particular perſon to the Elders of a particular Church: and doe you think that this is a good argument? That ſeing a particular perſon complayneth to or informeth the Apoſtle of the ſtate of the Church (who had an infallible gift of inſtructing and directing of Churches) therefore a particular perſon in the third place or degree of admonition muſt tell the Elders, & that therfor thoſe Elders are the Church? The argument is altogether inconſequent.

Your ſecond reaſon that tel the Church is tel the Governors is Chriſts chandg of the perſon: From the third to the ſecond: The force of your argument is this.

If Chriſt having ſpoken in the third perſon ſaying: Tel the Church: afterward turneth his ſpeech to the ſecond perſon ſaying: whatſoever ye bind &c. then tel the Church is tel the Elders.

But Chriſt chandgeth his ſpeech from the third to the ſecond perſon.

Therfor tell the Church is tel the Elders.

Mr. Ber. you were not wel adviſed in making this argument: For it overthroweth your expoſition moſt manifeſtly, as thus.

If Chriſt calleth his Diſciples the Church, then tel the Church is tel the Diſciples or the body of the Church.

But Chriſt calleth al his Diſciples the Church: For this commiſſion of binding and loſing is given to all the Diſciples jointly as is already declared more fully in the former arguments.

Therfor tel the Church is tel the body of the Church, al Chriſts Diſciples, & not only the Governors.

Therfor this reaſon confirmeth the truth we hold, & not the error which you ſeek to defend by wreſting the Scripture.

Your third reaſon that tel the Church is tell the Governors is, for that Chriſt ſpeaketh of two or three. That is to ſay (after your expoſition) of two or three Elders or governors & not of the whole body.

I anſwer that your argument is without al force of conſequence: For to argue thus is to argue without reaſon or force of argument, viz.

Iff Chriſt ſpeaketh of two or three, then he ſpeaketh of two or three Elders or Governors.

But Chriſt ſpeaketh of two or three.

Ergot Chriſt ſpeaketh of two or three Elders or Governors.

Further by this argument one Apoſtle could do nothing, but ther muſt needes be two or thre: & ſo one Elder can do nothing, but ther muſt needes be two or thre: & ſo your Prelates Monarchy in their dioceſes falleth to the ground but your arguments grow ridiculous.

Now the reaſon why Chriſt ſpeaketh of two or thre is for conſolatiō to the Church & Diſciples of Chriſt, teaching that if but two or thre of them at any tyme walk together in the faith & truth of Chriſt, thoſe two or thre have title to Chriſt & al his ordinances & have promiſe of audience & acceptance: as alſo to inſtruct the Saynts, to ſtand for the truth againſt multitudes, though they be the ſmalleſt nomber which is three or two, for Chriſt he wil not leave them deſtitute of his preſence and aſiſtance.

Your Fourth reaſons that Tel the Church is Tel the Elders in this: that the perſon is changed from the ſecond to the third, vſus. 19. if two of you shal agree, &c. whatſoever they shal ask &c: the force of the argument is al one with the ſecond, & ſo hath receaved anſwer there, but it ſeemeth you delight in nomber & multitude: yet for further evidēce I will show you the reaſon: the frame whereof is thus to be conceaved.

Iff ther be a Grammaticall change of the perſon, viz: you: they: then ther is a Reall chandg off the perſon phyſicall, viz: The Governors: The Church.

But ther is a grammatical chandg of the perſon, you: they.

Ergo: Ther is a Real chandg of the perſon phyſicall, viz: The Governors: the Church.

I deny your Major, & ſtil I avouch that the chandg of the perſon is by way of expoſition. teaching: that they: & you: are one: namely, whither they be two of Chriſts Diſciples then living (viz:you) or any other two or thre to the end of the world, (viz: they,) Chriſt hath promiſed his powre, preſence, & acceptance to them: For ſo he ſaith whereſoever two or thre, vſus. 20. & Mat. 28.20. Lo I am with you alwayes: So that theſe two general circumſtances of place & tyme are for the conſolatiō & inſtruction of the Church if they be but two or three in al ages: For not the multitude, but the truth is reſpected of Chriſt: & al tymes & places are indifferent for the Church of the new Teſtament which was otherwiſe in the old Teſtament: For the Lord then promiſed his preſence eſpecially in the Temple, vppon their Sabbaths, & to the ſpecial people: but now the partition wal is broken downe, & now al tymes, places, & perſons are indifferēt for the church & the Lord.

Your fifth reaſon that Tel the Church is Tel the Governors is this: that otherwiſe abſurdityes cannot be avoyded that ariſe out of the text: the abſurdityes you ſuppoſe would follow are, 1. confuſion, 2, careleſnes, wherevppon follow pride & contention, 3. weomen & childrē ſpeaking in the Church, 4. that the whole Church cā ſpeak. 5. Chriſts should croſſe himſelf, who giveth the powre to two or three.

Herevnto I anſwer: the ſuppoſed abſurdities either do not follow, or if they do folow are no abſurdities: For the truth is not abſurd.

Firſt, it doth not follow that ther muſt needs be confuſion, careleſnes, pride, or contention, if a brother be promoted to the body of the Church for his offence after once & twiſe admonition: but rather the brethren vnderſtanding that al are intereſſed in the buſines wilbe careful to diſchardg their dutyes, whereas by your fancy the care & chardg being caſt vppon the Elders & from the brethren, they may wholly neglect the matter, & the Church grow corrupt through the Elders partiality negligence, or other ſiniſter reſpect: & for confuſion: it is not intended as you groſſely imagine that al should ſpeake, but that al should conſent: For as in prayer one ſpeaketh & al the Church conſent: So in publique admonition & excommunication one ſpeaketh at once & the reſt conſent: & if any man have any thing to ſay he may ſpeake, & the firſt hold his peace, as, in Prophecy ſo in admonition by proportion, 1. Cor. 14.30. & yet the Lords o…der not be violated. & if pride & therevppon contentions do ariſe it is through the corruption of men, not through the ordinance of God, & may ther not much more pride grow in the Elders think you when they are abſolute Lords (as it were) over the people? & wil not that breed much more contention? And to contend for the truth is good and warrantable, yea & contentions muſt be in the true church, but woe be to thoſe by whome they come.

Secondly, you ſay the whole Church cannot ſpeake joyntly, nor ſeverally, one by one except weomen & children ſpeak: I deny it: the whole Church may ſpeake joyntly as in prayer & propheſying, 1. Cor. 11.4. So alſo in admonition & excommunication, by ſome perſons deputed therto either Elders if ther be any, or other if ther be no Elders: & for the ſpeaking of weomen in the Church I ſay it needeth not: for they, & ſo al the brethren may ſpeake by ſilence: or if any diſſent they may ſpeak either woman or youth, & yet the rule of the Apoſtle not violated, who forbiddeth weomen to lead the action of worship in prayer or propheſy, or praiſing God, or any action of Government in the preſence of men: but he doth not forbid a woman to ſpeake when she is called therto, in matter of Government: neither doth the Apoſtle intend to forbid weomen to pray or propheſy in the preſence of weomen only, as ſomtyme the occaſion may be miniſtred if the church conſiſt only of weomen: that this is ſo you shal perceave by comparing theſe places, 1. Cor. 14.34. 1. Tim. 2.12, & conſidering the reaſons of the Apoſtles prohibition: but let vsus ſee the force of your argument.

If tel it to the Church be tel it to the body of the Church: then every member of the Church muſt ſpeake in rebuking the partie.

But every member muſt not ſpeak in rebuking the partie that is promoted to the Church for ſinne.

Therfor tel it to the Church is not tel it to the body of the Church, & ſo it muſt needes be tel it to the Elders.

I deny your conſequent, for al may heare, take notice give conſent, & ſpeake if they ſe juſt cauſe orderly, & yet it followeth not that al are bound to ſpeake vocaly one by one: For ſilence is a ſufficient teſtification of conſent: Further I ſay your minor is weake: For every one is bound to ſpeak that ſeeth juſt cauſe or els he shall ther by ſtrangle his conſcience, and quench the Spirit, and ſuffer ſinne which he cannot do without ſinne.

Laſtly, Chriſt croſſeth not himſelf, in giving powre to two or thre: For he may give powre to two or three if ther be no more, & yet to twenty, an hundreth, a thouſand, if ther be ſo many: but you Mr. Bern, raiſe vp falſe expoſitions, & wrack the text to ſupport hereſies, therby making the Scriptures a leaden rule to frame to your crooked conceipts, & a noſe of waxe to be wrung which way your perverſe apprehenſions incline.

Your ſixth reaſon that tel the Church is tel the Governors is this: that els the Corinthians offended who were al commaunded to deale with the inceſtuous Corinth. & yet ſome only did ſo: & Paul should ſinne who vppon the advertiſement of Cloes howſe, did not wayt for the churches conſent, but himſelf alone determined the matter, & wils them to exente his ſentēcein the open congregation.

I anſwer: al the Corinths did deale with the inceſtuous perſon though many ſpake the reſt giving conſent to their ſpeeches: & therfor ther can no more ſinne lye vppon thē for not rebuking by voice, then ther lyeth ſinne vppon the whole Church, for not lifting vp their voice to ſpeake in prayer & propheſy, being al commaunded ſo to do: beſides all might ſpeake: for many ſomtyme ſignifieth al, as I have already shewed: but this is but idle ſtuffe which you object. Furthermore Paul was an Apoſtle having powre & infalibility to plant & direct & reforme Churches, & wil you frō hence fetch a rule for the perpetual government of the Church? it followeth not Paul did thus: go, one Prelate may do thus▪ nay by your owne expoſition ther muſt nedes be two or thre Prelates: but what did Paul? did he performe the whole decree of excommunication? I deny it vtterly: but the Apoſtles meaning is that he for his part gave his voice, & adviſe, & commaundemēt (as having rece…ved grace to be faithful) that the inceſtuous perſon should be excommunicate: & note it wel Mr. Ber. Paul doth bid the Elders (as you ſay) excommunicate him: cā theſe things agre? I beleeve your wit was wandering when you wrote theſe things: for you avouched out of the 2. Cor. 2.6. that many Elders did excōmunicate the inceſtuous perſon: & now you ſay that Paul at the information of Cloes Family, like a Lord Bb. decrees the ſentence of excommunication in his court, & cōmaundeth them to pronounce it: you gave this powre of late to the Elders, & now you take it frō the Elders, & give it to Paul, & make the Elders only his deputyes▪ but I wil shew you the reaſon of this your overſight & contradiction: you had by you in your ſtudy when you penned your book, the writings of the Reformiſts, & the writings of the Prelates: & being in wrath & choler enraged againſt vsus of the Seperatiō, you thought to make Herod & Pilate frends againſt Chriſt, & have gathered both the Prelates & Reformiſts objections againſt vsus & put thē downe in your book without judgment, & ſo through the weaknes of your vnderſtanding not diſcerning the reaſons of the Reformiſts & Prelates to contradict, bicauſe they fitted you againſt vsus, you not regarding the truth but the victory, have fallen into this groſſe contradiction which your learning can never ſalve: only your repentance & confeſſion can cure it.

Your laſt reaſon that tel the Church is tel the Elders is this: for that al reformed churches judg ſo: wel: yet you ſaid even now that tel the Church is tel the Apoſtle Paul, & the Lord Bb. by conſequent his ſucceſſors: are you in your right mynd Mr. Ber. that ſtumble thus? but you ſee what it is to reſiſt the truth.

But what if al the reformed Churches ſay ſo: is it ſo? if the Scripture ſay contrary it is not ſo: & the Churches muſt be reformed yet further according to the Scriptures.

Finaly, you prove that figuratively the part may cary the name of the whole: who denyeth it? & that therfor the Elders are called the Church: I deny that. For it foloweth not: yet I yeeld you thus much (which you shal gaine nothing by) that two or three Elders may be termed a church being ſeveraly by thēſelves, but jointly with the body they are not ſo: ſo a Chriſtian family, or rather the Chriſtians in a family may be truly termed a church ſeveraly: yet jointly with the body they are not ſo: For know you Mr. Ber. that the parts of the Church are ſimilares & Homogoncae: as every part of water is water, ſo every part of a Church, if they be a cōmunion, is a Church being ſevered neceſſarily from the whole: you ſay alſo that a company without officers no where is called a Church (Chriſtian families only excepted) in al the new Teſtament except Act. 14, 23. by anticipation. Firſt you muſt prove vntounto me Mr. Ber. that this place Act. 14.23. is by anticipation: For doth it follow bicauſe heaven & earth are ſo called by anticipation Gen. 1.1. therfor a company wanting officers are called a Church by anticipation? beſides you ſpeake falſely, ſaying that in al the new teſtament a company without officers is not caled a church: what ſay you to Act. 19.41. any company of people is called a C…rch in that place: and whereas you confeſſe that a Chriſtian family is called a Church by the warrant of the new Teſtament, you yeeld the cauſe: For if two or thre faithful perſons of a family are a Church, then two or thre faithful perſons of divers families are a Church: or els shew you a found reaſon to the contrary: hence I reaſon thus.

They which the Scripture cal a Church, are a Church.

The Scripture calleth two or thre beleevers in a family a Church.

Therfor: two or thre beleevers in a family are a Church.

Againe: If two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church: then two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church by proportion.

But two or thre beleevers of one family are a Church, by your confeſſion & teſtimony of the Scripture.

Therfor: two or thre beleevers of divers families are a Church.

But know, Mr. Ber. that we ſtrive not about the word, but about the matter: bee they Eccleſia, Synagoge, Diſciples, brethren, Saints, we regard not the word: we ſay that two or thre Diſciples, Saints, brethren, are Sinagoge, Eccleſia, a congregation with whome Chriſt is preſent, who have Chriſts powre, vntounto whome every member of the body muſt be promoted for ſinne, this you neither have diſproved, nor ever shalbe able: & heer endeth your digreſſion: & now you come vntounto your ſixth reaſon.

Your 6. reaſon againſt popularity is a repetition of things already anſwered in the fifth reaſon, that Tell the Church is Tel the Governors: Therfor I referre the reader thither.

Your 7. reaſon againſt popularity is that it is againſt the cōmaundement of Chriſt: For Heb. 13.17. 1. Pet. 5.2. the sheep muſt obey the shepheard, & the flock muſt depend vppon the Paſtor: & he is not to obey them or depend vppon them.

I anſwer: To the place Heb. 13.17. I ſay the Apoſtle doth not intend to teach that the whole body of the Church muſt yeeld to the voice of the Elders in every thing that they liſt: nor that the Eldership hath in their hands the powre of Chriſt to rule contrary to their liking: For the Lord ſubmitteth both Paſtors & Flock vntounto his owne lawes & wil: but the intent of the Apoſtle is to show that al the particular members in al their affaires muſt ſubmitt themſelves to the inſtruction direction & guidance of the Elders: For although Chriſt hath placed the Elders as ſtewards over the Servants, yet he hath not appointed them as Lords over his ſpowſe & wife: your argument therfor is a fallacian a conjunctione & diviſione, thus.

Al the particular members muſt obey the Elders in their lawful inſtructions, & their wholſome admonitions ſeverally.

Ergo, the whole body muſt jointly obey the voice of the Elders.

Againe, the whole Flock conſiſteth of two parts, Officers, and the Saints: The Saints muſt obey the Officers, that is one part of the Church muſt be directed by another, as the foote by the eye: yet the whole body jointly is above any one member or members apart.

Further al the Saints shal yeeld obedience to Elders in things cōmaunded by God, & the Elders shal al of them obey the voice of the church in things cōmaunded by God, but the queſtion is how far the sheep muſt obey the Elders who are shepheards, & how far the Elders which are the L. Servants muſt obey the wife & ſpowſe of Chriſt which is the Church: For know you Mr. Ber. theſe things may well ſtand together, that the whole Church may obey the Elders in ſome things: & the Elders muſt obey the body of the Church in other things.

The other place 1. Pet. 5.2. to en humin: may aswel be tranſlated with al your beſt ability, as, that dependeth vppon you: but I ſay further that the Flock muſt depend vppon the shepheards, as they are sheep, & as they al jointly are the wife of the lamb the beſt members muſt ſubmit to her voice being the voice of her husband & Lord.

You eight reaſon againſt popularity is this, that it is againſt common ſence that the parents should ſubmit to the Children, the workman to the work, the Seedſman to the corne.

I anſwer, neither is it reaſon that the whole body should yeeld to the hand, or the Servant to the Mr. Or the wife to the mayd. But you know the Church is a body & the Elders hands & other parts the church is the Mrs. & the Elders are Servants: but compariſons are not to be vrged further then their intention: leſt we break them in peeces & ſpoyle the proportion: & ſomtyme in ſome caſes the parēts may lawfully ſubmit to children, the workemen to the work, & the husbandmē to the corne: For you know that relations chandg arguments.

Your ninth & laſt reaſon againſt popularity is, that it is againſt the dignity & office of true Miniſters who repreſent Chriſts perſon, having their powre from him & which none but ſuch as repreſent Chriſt can give or take away: But the body of the Church doth not repreſent Chriſts perſon, nor ever did depoſe or make Miniſters: and bicauſe the body of the Church are not Miniſters, therfor they cannot make Miniſters: & ſuch like rotten ſtuffe.

I answer: That the Miniſters do repreſent Chriſts perſon I deny not: but avouch that the Church doth much more repreſent Chriſts perſon, who is the Spowſe & wife of Chriſt: & that the Miniſters have their powre from Chriſt I deny not, but al their powre commeth from Chriſt through the body of the Church as I have ſufficiently proved already: That the Church hath made Miniſters I have shewed, Act. 1. they choſe an Apoſtle when as yet they were not Apoſtles, they Elected Deacons, Act 6, Now Election is the very eſſence of a true Miniſter: The Church admonisheth an Elder, Col. 4.17. & depoſeth falſe Apoſtles, Reve. 2.2. preacheth, prayeth, & worshippeth wanting Elders, Act. 13.22.23 & whereas you ſay that Miniſters only make Miniſters, I answer it is the ground of Succeſſion which I have formerly overthrowne: & I ſay that the body of the Church hath in it al miniſterial powre immediately from Chriſt, & your ſlender ſtuffe hath prevailed nothing againſt this truths of the Lords: the vniverſity may make a Doctor, a Bachelor, a Maiſter, & yet …t not any ſuch thing, but a compound body having a charter from the King for that pu…poſe: a corporation may make a Major & Sherifes, & yet the corporation is not a Major or a Sheriffe: So the Church may make Miniſters, & yet the Church it ſelf is not properly an Elder, or Deacon; or VVidow, but a body politique having powre to produce ſuch workes by verue of the charter which Chriſt hath given vntounto it.

And thus Mr. Ber. I have done with you for this point: but Mr. Ains. ſteppeth vp with a new kind of Antichriſtianiſme never heard of before: & he teacheth vsus if we wil beleve him, that Chriſts ruling powre is in the Eldership, & that the Pope & Prelates are not Antichriſts for taking into their hands the powre of the multitude, but the powre of Chriſt.

Heer in the firſt place we muſt remember that the powre of Chriſt which we ſpeak of is a miniſterial delegated powre given to man: & that the queſtion is who is the firſt ſubiect of this miniſterial powre, who receave it immediately from Chriſt: I ſay the body of the Church is the firſt ſubject of it, & I ſay that whatſoever the Eldership hath, it hath from Chriſt through the body of the Church; & by the Churches diſpoſition, & this if you deny Mr. Ains. (which I think you do not) I ſay you are therein departed from the faith: The body of the Church having al her powre from Chriſt retaineth & keepeth it intire to it ſelf, & doth not ſo delegate it to any officers, as that she leeſeth it & is deprived of it: neither doth she delegate any powre to her officers, but that which she formerly receaved from Chriſt her head, husband & Lord: For Chriſt giveth not a double miniſterial powre, one immediately to the body of the Church which she hath & keepeth: another mediately to the Eldership by the Churches diſpoſition which the church hath not at al, but is only a conduit pipe to conveigh it to the Eldership: if you hold ſuch a matter, declare it vntounto vsus out of the word of God & we wil receave it when we ſee it: in the meane tyme we hold that whatſoever the Elders have, they have it from the Church by delegation: & that the Church hath it in ther owne hands, & receaved it from Chriſt by vertue of the covenant God maketh with it in Chriſt, giving Chriſt for King, Preiſt & Prophet to the Church, & therfor the Church hath from Chriſt the head al powre, & al the members & officers of the Church have al their powre from the body, which they hold & vſe in the body & not Seperated from the body: The Elders as it were the hands are conjoyned to the Church as to the body: The body of the Church is conjoyned to, Chriſt the head: The body hath no powre devided from the head: the hands have no powre divided from the body. So a company of men have no powre Seperated from Chriſt: an Eldership hath no powre Seperated from the Church: but as all powre floweth from the head to the body, & then to the hāds through the body, which is firſt in the body before it come to the hands: So al powre Eccleſiaſtical or miniſteriall is derived from Chriſt to the Church, & then through the Church to the Elders, which is firſt in the Church before it come to the Elders: And as when the hands are cut of the body ſtil retaineth the powre intire though it wāt hands & the powre of the hands is ſ… in the body: So when the Eldership is depoſed the Church ſtil retaineth the powre of the Eldership, though it want an Eldership: & as the hands can do nothing contrary vntounto the liking of the whole body, but the actions of the hands are by conſent of the body: So the Eldership can do nothing contrary to the liking of the Church: but the actions of the Elders muſt be by conſent of the Church: & as thoſe hands are worthy to be cut of that rebel againſt the body & wrong it, or endaunger it: So are theſe Elders worthy to be cut of from the Church that rebel againſt the Church, wrong it, or endaunger it. This is the faith which I hold Mr. Ains & if you hold any other faith, it is not the faith of Chriſt: but let vsus ſee what your book wil aford vsus.

Firſt, you ſay: Chriſts ruling powre, which the papiſts ſay is in the pope, we ſay not is in the body of the congregation the multitude, but in Chriſt himſelf: & that the Pope is Antichriſt, not for taking into his hands the powre of the multitude, but of Chriſt, to rule & governe the Church as head of the ſame, confutat. of Mr. Bern. pag. 175.

You know Mr. Ains, that the Pope doth not aſſume that powre which Chriſt as King hath in his owne hands reſerved to himſelf: but the pope claymeth to be a miniſteriall head vnderunder Chriſt, having a Miniſterial powre given vntounto him by ſucceſſion from Peter: & although it cannot be denyed, but that he doth many actions which are proper works of Chriſts powre Monarchical proper to himſelf, yet that is but the miſinterpretation of his miniſterial headship, not vnderſtāding how far that miniſterial headship, which he challengeth, extendeth, & it is not his proper clayme to Chriſts office: therfore properly the Pope is not Antichriſt for challendging Chriſts Kingly powre proper to himſelf: but for aſſuming Chriſts Miniſterial powre delegated to his Church: although I do not deny but the Pope enlargeth the delegated powre further then Chriſt hath preſcribed in his word: So that the Pope is Antichriſt in two reſpects. 1. For clayming that powre which Chriſt hath given to the body of the Church, 2. For extending that miniſterial powre beyond the compaſſe which Chriſt hath limited in the word.

Secondly, you ſay: Chriſts ruling powre, which the Proteſtants ſay is in the Bbs. the Prelates, we do not ſay is in the multitude, but in Chriſt himſelf, & that the Bbs. are very Antichriſts for aſſuming Spiritual juriſdiction aperteyning to Chriſt alone, confut. of Mr. Bern. pag. 175.

Heer alſo you cannot be ignorant Mr. Ains. that the Prelates do not challendg that Monarchical powre which is properly inherent in Chriſts perſon, but renounce it vtterly as confidently as you do: but they only challendg that Miniſterial powre which Chriſt (as they ſay) hath delegated to the Apoſtles & their Succeſſors the L.Bbs. neither can you with any good conſcience ſay that they clayme Chriſts Kingly powre, but only they are Antichriſts as the Pope is for two cauſes. 1. For clayming that powre Miniſteriall which Chriſt hath given to the body of the Church. 2. For enlarging that miniſterial powre beyond that compaſſe which Chriſt in his word hath determined.

Thirdly, you ſay Neither that ruling powre of Chriſt, which the Puritanes ſay is in the presbytery, do we ſay is in the multitude: For we acknowledg Chriſt to have ordeyned a presbytery or Eldership & that in every Church, for to teach & rule them by his owne word & lawes: vntounto whome al the multitude, the members, the Saints, ought to obey & ſubmit themſelves as the Scriptures teach, confut. of Mr. Bern. pag. 176.

VVee ſay Chriſts ruling powre is originally & fundamentally in the body of the Church the multitude: & we acknowledg further that the Elders receave by delegation powre from the body of the Church, which powre miniſterial in the hands of the Elders is not ſo large as that which is in the body, but it is rather a leading powre then a ruling powre: neither are the Elders in al the new teſtament (to my knowledg) called Rulers archontes, but overſeers, leaders, Elders, prohiſtamenoi, wherby the holy Ghoſt would teach that their powre is not to rule, but to leade & direct: I do therefore vtterly diſclaime this your error Mr. Ains, as one part of Antichriſtianiſme in your Church: but you had need expound it wel for the ſatisfaction of the brethren of the Seperation, leaſt you here in deſtroy your conſtitution before you be aware.

VVhat we hold concerning the Presbytery I have delivered partly in that which before I have written in anſwer to Mr. Bern. partly in that which I lately published concerning the differences of the Churches of the Seperation in the ſecond part, & the firſt Section, Chap. 5. & 6. wherfor if you hold that Lordly, vſurped, Antichriſtian powre of your Eldership to be that ruling powre which the word of God warranteth, it shalbe your part to juſtifie it, & to rebuke al that gainſt and it, for herein wee vtterly diſclayme your judgment & practiſe: we maintaine that the powre of the Eldership is a leading, directing, & overſeeing powre, miniſtery, or ſervice, both in the Kingdom & Preiſthood of the Church, & that the negative voice, the laſt, definitive, determining ſentence is in the body of the Church, wherto the Eldership is bound to yeeld: & that the Church may do any lawful act without the Elders: but the Elders can do nothing without the approbation of the body, or contrary to the body.

Parallels Censures, Letter 1 · Section 7

p. 36The ſeaventh Section.