I Will not trouble my selfe to prove that there is a visible Church upon the Earth, or true vi­sible Churches in England, I thinke there are none that owne the Scriptures, who will deny the former, though there are some who deny the latter, unlesse I meane the Congregatio­nall Churches, which they will acknowledge to be Churches, but none else; yet many of those, whom I write against, doe not owne them, for though they have opportunity, and may joyne with such Churches, yet they refuse to doe so, being unwilling (I perceive) to come under, or maintaine any Officers; I wish there be not too strong arguments to prove, that Covetousnesse and Ambition reigne too much amongst this kind of Separa­tists, yet because the proving that there are true visible Chur­ches in England, will be of great consequence to the following Discourse (as being the ground-work of it:) I will therefore produce one Argument to prove it, and if I can prove that, then it will necessarily follow, there is a true visible Church on the earth; which (as I said) I thought no Christian dares deny. But what da [...]es not the vile heart of man think, say, or doe, if God give it up, to its owne blindnesse, and wickednesse?

Master Burroughs making mention of Schusselburgius, Iren. pag. 236. who collected the Sects, Opinions, and wayes of men soone after Luther saith, There is not any one strange Opinion amongst us now, but you shall finde it amongst them in terminis; onely I remember not that one that hath taken some, who though they acknowledge the Scripture, yet thinke there is no visible Church on the earth.

Many were the errours that were confuted, condemned in the first Synod in New England, which errours I finde here in England, but there was not this errour amongst them all (to my remembrance:) it was wont to be said of Africa, that every [Page 2]yeare it produced a new Monster, but now it must be said of England, that it hath produced such a Spirituall Monster, as no Nation, that owned the Scriptures, ever did before. The Lord save us from our owne hearts. But I will now prove the Thesis, as I said before, there are true visible Churches in England.

Where there are many Societies of visible Saints, and true Ministers, consenting together to worship God in his holy Or­dinances, there are true visible Churches.

But in England, there are many Societies of visible Saints, and true Ministers consenting together to worship God in his holy Ordinances, Ergo, in England there are many true visible Churches.

The Major is so plaine, that none who know what a visible Church is, and what the Churches in the Gospel were, but must needs yeeld it.

Here are the essentiall causes of a Church; Ergo, here is a Church.

First, here is the materiall cause, Visible Saints, the Ministers also, as visible Saints, help make up the matter; but as they are Ministers they make the Churches Organicall (which is more.)

2 Here is the formall cause, their consenting to worship God, &c. he that yeelds the essentiall causes, and yet denies the effect, hath lost his reason.

A Church, is any company of Saints in body, to set up what Ordinances of God they know; This is a true Church, and here God dwels, In Hos. 8.1. saith Mr. Burroughs.

He speakes of a Church, as it is a Homogeneall body, but I goe further; the Separatists indeed will catch hold of his defi­nition, as Cyprian saith, the Schismaticks in his time did of that text, in Matth. 18.20. to which eh answered very well, De u­nita Eccles. and hence they will conclude, we are Saints in bo­dy; ergo we are true Churches.

But I pray, are there not visible Saints also in the Churches, from which you irregularly (as I shall prove after) did sepa­rate? Are they not as good as your selves? Did not you attain to that visibility of Saint-ship, which you have, while you were in those Churches? Doe you set up the Ordinances of God so farre as you know (or may know, if errour doth not hinder) as they doe from whom you have separated? Nay, you cannot [Page 3]doe it, for you neither have men fit for Office, nor will you en­dure to come under Officers; and therefore if you looke into the ninth verse of the same Chapter, Faciunt faves vespae, faciunt Ecclesias Mar­ciouitae. Tertul. you shall finde Mr. Bur­roughs saying, That those, who love to live without Ordinances, from under the government of Christ, are those that love to live in the Wil­dernesse. His words may be applyed to many of these Separa­tists, who call for separation from the word, as well as to those who are in the world. But to my Argument.

All the quarrell will be about the Ministers, The Presbyte­rians speake the same Lan­guage, if the words in Body please you, the Correlatum of Ecclesiasticall Power is a peo­ple embodied in a Church, or a Spirituall cor­poration, Gil­lesp. Aar. rod. 191. Iren. p. 102. and the consen­ting together, &c. as for Mr. Burroughs phrase, there being in Body, this they like well, but so are not those visible Saints I mention, say they. But to take away that Cavill, and so to re­turne to the Ministers, you may know what Mr. B. meanes by being in body, by shewing what makes a Church Covenant; saith he, I know nothing more is required, but to manifest their assent, to joyne with that Body, to set up all the Ordinances of Christ, so farre as they know. And doe not those visible Saints actually manifest their assent by their continuall attendance upon their Officers in all the Ordinances of God, and maintaining their Officers to that intent, that they may have the Ordinances of Christ set up a­mongst them? Shall the want of an Adjunct null the Church, when as they do the very thing, which they should expresse? Put case you expresse your assent, and doe not the things which you express your assent unto, are you therefore a Church, because of your expressing your assent? What then are those who doe the things, though they doe not expresse their assent in words, but in Acts? This is good, and sufficient to prove the essence, though both expression and doing is better, but of this more after.

But the Ministers are those who spoyle all; there are those who cannot deny there are Ordinances, but there are none to ad­minister them; and this was the reason, which one of the chiefe Members of a Church in London (who did use to Prophesie (as they call it) in the absence or wearinesse of the Pastor) gave to an honest man, who was troubled, because he fell off from the Church, and exercising his gifts, and turned Seeker. I name not the man, nor the Church, but it is too true.

Now suppose I could not prove the Ministers to be true Mini­sters, yet those visible Saints which I named before, and those whom you call Presbyterians, doe meet together, conferre, pray, and fast together; watch one over another, and so, if you wil [Page 4]consider them as Homogeneall Bodies, they are as good Chur­ches as those Separatists, which have no Officers; therefore still there are true visible Churches in England, besides the Separa­tists, and so my Argument stands firme. But I will prove there are many true Ministers, even amongst those, whom you call Presbyterial Ministers, thus:

Where there are men sufficiently qualified by God, orderly (at least for substance) called to the Ministry, and doe that worke, which Christ appointed his Ministers to doe, there are true Gospel-Ministers.

But in many of the Churches of England, there are such men, ergo in many of the Churches of England there are true Gospel-Ministers.

I put in the word many, I dare ven­ture farre here, but that I would save my selfe a­gainst those whom I oppose. because I am sure I shal maintaine my ground, for why should I have undertaken to prove that all the Ministers in England are true Gospel-ministers? and that in e­very Parochiall Congregation in the blinde corners of England, there are such visible Saints, as ought to be, in the constitution of a Church (enough I meane to make a Church) I should have had a hard taske; but by this word many I include abundance both Churches and Ministers, besides our Congregationall Mi­nisters; now to my Argument.

The major cannot be denied, for all the causes are there set downe, which are required to a true Minister.

1 The efficient cause, God;

2 Materiall cause, a man sufficiently qualified, I meane accor­ding to Pauls phrase, 2 Tim. 2.2. [...], the same word with 2 Cor. 2 16 who is sufficient? two distinctions would cleare this latter text, but I spare the reader.

3 Formall cause, orderly called, I put in (at least for substance) because I would include many of the Presbyteriall men.

4 Finall cause, Ephes. 4.12. the end of the Ministry is, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the worke of the Ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ. So that no rationall man can deny the major.

Now for the minor, that there are many such Ministers in England, we shall see;

1 For the efficient cause, there is no controversie there.

2 For the materiall, that they are sufficiently qualified in that sence above mentioned, who can deny it? many, yea abundance [Page 5]qualified with reall grace, and experimentall workings on their owne hearts, besides their Ministeriall qualifications, and these many others have, who it may be have not the former, as could be wished; but I hope, though some doe whisper, yet they will not undertake to defend it, that there can be no true Minister, unlesse he have reall Grace: I have heard some that have affirmed as much, but they are not such as dare undertake the Question. But as for Ministeriall qualifications, I doe be­leeve the gifts of Ministers were never larger then now; since the Apostles dayes never were the truths of God more clearly layed open then now; God doth seeme to give out such large measures in these dayes, as it were in opposition to this wild Generation, that when they are crying out, there are no Mini­sters, God confutes them, by pouring out more of his Spirit in point of Ministeriall abilities upon them, then before; indeed where other holy men have gone before in such Parishes, and places thereabouts, we finde not that preaching workes now, as it did when it came new to the places, yet I say the gifts of Ministers now are as strong, as they were before; but this is one of the Ministers heavie burdens in our dayes, their Trading is dead.

Thirdly, formall cause: Our Ministers, abundance of them are orderly called (for substance:) there are but two things that I know of to make up this call, Election and Ordination: For election, many, if not all, of the godly Ministers are elected by the people, some by the whole Parish, and others by the best in the Parishes. But you say the Patron presents: It is true, but not so, as to bring one in against the consent of the people: Verily for Patrons to present an unworthy Minister, and bring him in against the consent, especially of the godly, and orthodox Chri­stians, it is an act of cruell Tyranny, and worthy of a Petition to the Parliament to get such an horrible abuse removed; but you have a way now to helpe your selves against scandalous Ministers by the Civill-power, and should have had it by Church-power, if once Discipline were set up.

But if the Minister be not an unworthy man, though the Pa­tron did present, as in former times, and he came in without the consent of the people at the first, but had it afterwards; this makes his election good: Hear what the New England Ministers say to this point: Yet sometimes the peoples acceptance and approbation af­terward [Page 6]may supply the want of election at the first, Ans. to the 32. Quest. p. 69. V. Ames Consc. l. 4. c. 25. q. 7. as Jacobs after con­sent and acceptance of Leah, made her to be his wife, though he chose her not at the first; and by this we hold the calling of many Ministers in England may be excused, who at first came into their places without the consent of the people. So Dr. Ames.

But are all these Separatists so regular? I doubt not: I can give instance of a Weaver, who lived in a Towne, where I had my abode for a little time; the Minister of the place was a very able man, regularly called, and inclining at that time to the Con­gregationall way; yet this Weaver (I thinke that was his calling) separated from him, and the other Christians, and had his owne society, to whom he did preach (as they said) but when the winde did settle in the Independent quarter; this Weaver had a minde to a Pulpit, but I hope then he will looke to his orderly calling; he will not dare to venture but by the Gospel-way, that now we shall judge; his way of election was this, as an honest Christian of the same Towne, and one of this mans friends told me, that Goodman B. an honest Carrier being a Sequestra­tor in the Towne, he puts him in, and this is one part of his calling, as for Ordination that is a Toy: But is this regular? then let these Separatists for ever hold their tongues; I know not, but if a Sequestrator may put a Weaver (let him be a godly and a pretty man, as some say he is, I love not to judge other folkes godlinesse, I have enough to doe at home) into a Parish, when as the people call him not, then may a Patron put in able and godly Divines into their Parishes with the peoples consent first or last: as the noble Earle of Warwick, I beleeve hath helped many Parishes to as able godly Divines, as any one Sequestrator hath done. I could give the Reader instances of others, but so much I perceive by these kinde of men, that I little regard what they say, for if there lye any matter of advantage in their way, they will stretch their principles, as far as they please.

As for their sufficient qualification, which should make the materiall cause of a Minister, we must not question them in our dayes: Paul indeed said, Who is sufficient for these things? our lan­guage is, Who is not sufficient for these things? much might here be said (I am privy to mine own insufficiency, and desire to bewail it) but let me propound one thing to these men, and see how they answer it. Amongst the opinions which Mrs. Hutchison had brought forth in New Eng. this was one, That there was no inherent [Page 7]grace in a beleever, no new creature, nothing but Jesus Christ, and he was the new creature; one of Mrs. Hutchisons followers, on a Lords day stood up in the Congregation, and would defend it against the learned and reverend Teacher, and told him the text was read so in the original, If any man be in Christ, the new creature, 2 Cor. [...].17. [...], what can these men say to this that know not the Originall, nor Grammar, both which a man must know to answer this: so if another should defend a heresie, and tell you the text is so in the Hebrew: for the Jesuits subtle and crabbed disputations, we must not mention them, these men are doubtlesse sufficient; not but that I could allow a solid, humble, experienced, orthodox, and well-gifted Christian, called regularly, and set apart to the worke of the Ministry, with the neighbour-hood of some learned able Divine to have his recourse to, I say, I could allow such a one to preach in dark corners of the land. But when men will cry out of other Ministers for want of orderly calling, separate from them, and thus carry themselves, that the bones of their ambition sticke out, and then through unfoundnesse in opinion, though no way able, though not regularly called, yet they will get into Livings and Pulpits, this is abominable.

So much for Election, that part of their calling will hold; as for the other requisite, Ordination, to prove our Ministers have that also; (for the substance of it) here will lye the pinch of the controversie, therefore I reserve it for another place.

Fourthly, for the finall cause, here also the Ministers will ap­peare to be true Ministers; for conversion and edification, the Lord hath honoured the English Ministry with as much successe, as any Nation under heaven; the Lord hath set seale to hun­dreds of our Ministers, in giving them some soules in conver­sion, and building up many, according as are their severall gifts; and for a proofe of it, let me appeale to your selves, who have thus separated from them: Cannot you say, that you have found God in their Ministry? I am sure your owne words must wit­nesse against divers of you, if you deny it, for you have ac­knowledged, by them you were first awakened, and brought home: Now I beseech you consider what you doe, you who are the soberest, and retaine the savour of God in your hearts: If Christ shall say to you, Why doe you deny these to be true Ministers? I owne them to be such, I have qualified them with Ministerial and per­sonal [Page 8]gifts; I have sealed to their Ministry, by making them my instru­ments to bring home many, and to build up those, who were brought home: I have often humbled, awed, cheared, refreshed the hearts of my people by them, your owne selves (who are mine) are witnesses of it, I found you out by them, &c. They had their call from the people, and though there were some circumstantiall defects in their setting apart to the worke, yet those they freely acknowledge, and I doe as freely pardon, will not my presence with them make up that defect in your hearts, still to owne them, and re­verence them, as my Ministers, since I doe?

Now I say, what would you answer to the Lord Jesus? I doubt not, though many have their infirmities (as who have not many infirmities) yet Christ doth owne them for his Mi­nisters, and Paul, or the Apostles, if they now were alive, would not deny it.

Object. If you say, that indeed God did goe along with the old Ministers, but not with these.

Answ. But the same argument you give against these Mini­sters from their Ordination, doth make as much against these old Ministers, as these now living, they were no true Ministers neither by your opinion.

2. We can say, that even with the labours of these Ministers doth Christ goe along, though not so much as he did before, when the Gospel came first into places, for edification we finde it, which is one end in that Ephes. 4.12. and I pray take heed that your scorning of them, be no occasion to hinder their worke, for you must answer for it, what ever the Decrees of God be. So much for my first argument.

2. I would use a second argument to prove we have true Mi­nisters, &c. And here I would propound one question to these men, who thus deny the Ministry: It is this, Were there ever any true Ministers and Churches (let me put in them also) since the Apostles dayes? I hope you will say yes: But I pray how long were there such Ministers and Churches? in which Century did there cease to be true Ministers, and true visible Churches? I suppose you will say, when Antichrist began (here now you would doe us a good turne, if you could make it out cleare to us when that was, that so we might know how long our mi­series shall last) if so, then to be sure for the first three hundred yeares after Christ, which were times of persecution, yea, and divers yeares after, you must grant there were true Ministers. [Page 9]Let us then compare our Ministers, and Churches with them; for our Ministers, many are godly, as well as those, all the Ministers then were not truly gracious I beleeve; nay by stories we can learne they were not. As for Ministeriall gifts, those who have skill to compare the workes, and Sermons of our Ministers now, with their workes and Homilies, shall finde that the Presbyterial Ministers are not behinde them, but in opening the doctrines of Free-grace, Christ, promises, which are the glory of the Gospel, as also for discovering of Hypocrisie (without any dishonour to those Ancients,) I may say they do excell them.

For the Churches, it is true, we know not what we should doe, if the Lord should call us to sufferings; but this we know, the same power, which carried them through, is able to carry us through: for losses of estates, leaving of their native Country, &c. I am sure New England hath gone very far with them for that kinde of suffering, and so have some here also, yea, and for not submitting to superstitious Ceremonies, and inventions of men in the worship of God, which they even in those times made nothing of: How many vaine rites and ceremonies were then used in Baptisme, By Tertul. Cyp. Ep. 59 The kis­sing of the childe. By August. time there were many Ceremo­nies added Symb. ad Catech. l. 4. c. 1. Lib. de Co­ro. mil. Ep. 70.72. Tertul. de Bap. which our Ministers did never owne, but were silenced, &c. for lesse matters, yet these were the primitive Churches.

Besides those Ceremonies in Baptisme, there were other strange things used, which our Divines never owned, I say, in those primitive Churches.

As the Anointing of the baptized, As Cyprian, It is necessary that the baptized person be anointed, &c. yea, and puts much in it, as one may see, who reads those Epistles.

Tertullian also makes mention of this.

Hence Fabianus ordered, that this oyle should be prepared every yeare, and reprehended those, who kept it two or three yeares together, in secunda Epist. and Episc. orient. Hence also care was taken afterwards, that none but Bishops should make this, the Presbyters must not dare to doe it. Sylvester in Concil. Rom.

Also holy Vestures for the Ministers to be used onely in the Churches; many of ours never owned these, Epist. Steph ad Hil. all have cast them away.

Also in the Lords Supper, the mixing of water with the wine, which how ever some say, it was because of the hot Coun­tries, [Page 10]yet Alexander, who they say was the first that mixed wa­ter with wine, Epist. ad omnes Ortho. Apol. 2. doth not give that reason, but because water and blood came out of Christs side. In Justin Martyrs time, it seemes this was their manner also, but this was not the Institu­tion.

Also we find severall Church-officers among them, as appears by Gaius Bishop of Rome, who ordered, that all the orders in the Church must ascend, from the door-keeper to the Bishop. Ostia­rius, Lector, Exorcista, Acolythus, Subdiaconus, Diaconus, Presbyter, Episcopus. The ordination of these Officers, with their Cere­monies are after set downe in the fourth Councel of Car­thage.

If the Decretals of Gaius be of any Authority, all these were in primitive Churches, before Constantine came to the Em­pire.

More things I might adde, but I forbeare.

And though there were many glorious Martyrs, yet all their Church-members were not such, many did yeeld to the hea­thenish Idolatry, when persecution began, yea, and there were foul sins among them Churches, as Adultery, Whoredome (yea, even among those, who had beene Confessors, as Cyprian affirmes, in­gemiscimus saith he, to see it) drunkennesse, swearing, and what not, as any one may well gather, who is but a little versed in An­tiquity, De unita Eccles. and by reading over the Canons made in their Councels, we may learne what they were troubled with.

As for the Ministers, they also were ordained by Bishops (though they were not such lordly ones as ours were) with Presbyters joyning with them, this no man can deny that knows any thing of those times; whence then I am bold to affirme, that if there were true Ministers, and true visible Chur­ches in those times, even while they were under persecuting heathenish Emperours, then there are true Ministers, and true vi­sible Churches now in England, and if there be none now, nei­ther were there any in those times; but I thinke no man is so im­pudent to deny that there were true Ministers and Churches in those times. I plead now for many Presbyteriall Ministers, and their Congregations. So I have done with my second Argument, which if I should draw into forme, it runnes thus:

If there were true Ministers, and true visible Churches in the [Page 11]first three hundred yeares after Christ, then there are true Mini­sters, and visible Churches now in England.

But the Antecedent is true, ergo the consequent is true.

Some we have that dote, they tell us, they expect men to be sent from God, and endued with extraordinary gifts, as were the Apostles, &c, and these are the men, who shall set up Chur­ches, and reforme us. Good Lord, whither will our vile hearts carry us, if thou dost leave them?

These persons are not worth the answering, but yet let me say a little to them, and so passe on to the chiefe thing I in­tend.

For the gift of Tongues, I need not speake, what is necessary God hath given to most, and many excell in that gift.

For Miracles.

I They were given but for that time, to help on the worke of the Ministry (as sauce doth meat) but now if God doth that by the Ministry of his Servants without Miracles, which he did then by the Ministry accompanied with Miracles (viz. Convert, Edifie, Formalize, &c.) this doth but more confirme our Mini­stry, and prove that God ownes these despised Ministers. The plaine word preached, hath made as good Christians, as preach­ing, and Miracles.

2 If any Body hath need of the gift of Miracles, then Master Eliot in New England hath, who now preaches to the Indians, and others with him; but God carrieth on his worke amongst the Indians without miracles.

3 Doe not you your selves beleeve the Scriptures to be the Word of God? if so, what need have you of such kinde of per­sons so gifted? The greatest Miracle which I desire to confirme me in the truth of the Scriptures, is to finde the power of Christ his Death, and Resurrection in my heart, without which I care not for miracles. But enough for these.

There are others, who having been Members of an Indepen­dent Church, where divisions have fallen out, and so have broke in peeces, they have said, that Ministers are not fitted with a spirit of Government, to keep Churches in order, and therefore these are not times as yet for such Reformation, I answer;

1 The more shame for your Church-Members, who are of such proud, and turbulent spirits, that godly and able Ministers are not able enough to governe them; those who come into Church [Page 12]Communion with the awe of God upon their hearts, we can governe them; some such spirits we finde among the Indepen­dents, but if we could see more it would be better.

2 I wonder not at your Divisions, when I see what Princi­ples some godly Congregationall men have gone by, for the ordering of their Church Government.

3 Your Argument is as strong against the Apostles, for there were Heresies, and Schismes in their dayes.

But I leave these, and return to that, from whence I have made a digression; Having then proved there are true Ministers, and Churches in England, let us examine the grounds, why these men separate from these Ministers, and Churches; I conceive their grounds may be referred to one of these heads:

• Either to The Ministers,
• Either to Or Worship,
• Either to Or the Congregation,
• Either to Or the place of meeting;

If there be any thing else that cannot so well be reduced to one of these, yet I am sure I shall meet with it, before I have done.

For the Ministers, they are indeed made the Dung of England, who are more scorned then they, especially the Presbyteriall men, be they never so holy, or learned? Whether there be just cause in respect of men, I leave it to God to judge; I am sure when Ministers were in honour, we found the Word had good effect, but since they came to be thus scorned, little good hath been done. I deny not but God may have a just quarrell against us, and give me leave (without offence) to propound the Rea­sons why.

1 The first I had rather conceale, because I should seem to spy out a mote in my Fathers, and Brethrens eyes, when I have a beame in my owne; but therefore I rather propound it, as I heard it from a Reverend and judicious Divine, a man of a gracious and moderate spirit, Mr. Nathaniel Rogers in New Eng­land. I was talking with him there, when the newes came of the Covenant that England, and Scotland entred into; the thing pleased him, and all our Churches exceedingly: This only, (said he) I have not heard of, That there hath been a generall Hu­miliation amongst the Ministers, for their yeelding so much to the super­stitious inventions of that Hierarchy.

2 I conceive God may justly have a quarrell against us (the [Page 13]younger sort of Ministers) for our wofull conformity to the Fashions of the times; what long haire now doe we see most young Ministers weare, and if any new fond fashion comes up, who follows it sooner then they? Who take more liberty here then Independent Ministers, the younger sort?

3 There hath been a too great Idolizing of Learning, and a­busing it in Sermons, by reciting of the Fathers, or School-men, some men fondly making, it may be, a quarter of their Sermons to be Latine, or Greek sentences out of them, and then turning them into English, to make people admire them, and conclude them to be great Schollars; not but that it is lawfull to quote a Father, or a Schoole-man: but I speake of that excesse, and pride also, that went along with it, that they thought them­selves so exalted above the people, and looked on them, as the Pharisees, Joh. 7.49. Hence God doth now let Ministers and Learning be trampled upon. But this was not the fault of those godly men, who now are despised, as much as the worst.

4 There is in some young Ministers a too base esteeme of private Christians, that are not learned; I have heard my selfe those, who have spoken very contemptibly of them, scorning they should have any hand in Church affaires; now it is true, there are abundance of private Christians very weake, but some there are, solid, understanding men; and though we doe not ad­mit these to be Governours in the Church (unlesse chosen to the Office of a Ruling Elder, to joyne with us) yet Ministers shall finde sometimes, that they have no cause to repent, in gi­ving an eare to what they say.

These things I have observed, and wish (especially for the three latter) that God hath not brought us downe for them. I might have added, some young Ministers study more quint-es­sentiall Notions, curious Phansies, and please people much with fine speculations about Christ, and Free Grace, but have left the old way of Preaching, which did the good. This Chy­micall Divinity hath pleased mens eares, but not awed, nor humbled mens hearts; it makes frothy, but not solid Chri­stians.

But these are not to be imputed to all the Presbyterians, who are thus scorned.

But now to the Ministers.

The generall apprehension that these men have of the Mini­sters, is that they are Anti-christian Ministers, and what is more common in their mouthes then to call them so? This is a heavie charge, if it could be proved: but this terme Anti-christian is both a simple terme, a complexe Proposition, a Syllogisme, i. e. they think it sufficient proofe to charge them with it, though hundreds of these know no more then a Babe, wherein the forma­lity of Anti-christianisme doth consist, but every thing that dis­pleases them, that is Antichristian; Infant Baptism is Anti-christian, the Ordination of Ministers is Anti-christian, singing of Psalms is Anti-christian, it is proofe sufficient, they have said it; now this seemes to me very strange, that those men, who Instrumen­tally, 1. Convert men to Christ. 2. Build up men in Christ. 3. Oppose Anti-christ to the utmost. 4. Who have cast off Anti-christ. 5. If they were under Anti-christs power, should soon finde his favour to be Fire and Faggot, yet these men to be called Anti-christians, I say with the Text, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan: But if you will take Anti-christ in a large sence, why may not those be as truly called Anti-christians, who doe throw downe, what Ordinances Christ hath set up; as, The Or­dinance of the Ministry, giving his promise to be with it to the end of the world; the Baptizing of the infants of beleeving Parents; singing of Psahnes, any forme of externall Church-Government; all these are throwne downe by most of you, and many walke above Ordi­nances. I say, may not these be called as truly Anti-christians in a large sence, who thus throw downe, what Christ hath set up, as well as those, who set up such Ordinances, as Christ never did set up? (which is one signe of Anti-christianisme.)

But if you would know what is properly Anti-christianisme, Exposi. on Hos. first Book, p. 162. I pray take it from a farre more able man then my selfe, one well knowne, and that deserves honour, Mr. Burroughs; he well observed the madnesse of people, that cry out against any thing, that displeases them, that it is Anti-christianisme, then sets downe thus, wherein it consists.

1 Whosoever shall obtrude any Doctrine upon the Church, to be belee­ved by their owne Authority.

2 The intrusion of such Offices, and Officers in the Church, as meerly belong to the spirituall man.

3 The imposing of any Ordinance, or new Institution upon the Church.

4 The imposing of Lawes so to binde Conscience, as the Lawes of Christ doe.

This, saith he, is to set up another head. I need not adde the owning of the Pope as a visible Monarchical head over the Church, who doth all that, which Mr. Burroughs hath mentioned; but this then I desire, that any, who thus call the Ministers Antichristian, would charge them, and make it good, that they are guilty of any of these things, or else be ashamed for ever after to call faithfull Ministers of Christ, Antichristians.

But what colour have these men for this vile aspersion, I ne­ver heard but onely this, their Ordination. The summe of all they say, amounts to this, The Ministers of England stand by a Ro­mish ordination; Ergo, They are no true Gospel, but Antichristian Mi­nisters, this is that, which makes the heavy stir in England.

For answer to this, I may say as the father of the blinde man, He is of age, and can speake for himself; so the Presbyterial Ministers are of ability sufficient to speake, and have spoken enough in answer to this cavill, to satisfie sober mindes; but what will satisfie unreasonable men? I am not very willing to in­sist upon this, because I can speak but little, which hath not beene spoken before (for the substance) but yet this being an ingre­dient unto the formall cause of a Minister (which I have men­tioned before, and promised to prove, that for the substance of the Ordinance our Ministers have it) I must speake a few words in answer to their cavils against it.

The Ordination of these Ministers, say they, came from the Romish Sy­nagogue, they also were ordained by Bishops, Ergo, They are no true Ministers, hence we separate from them.

I answer,

First, had I thought there had beene such a stirre in England about this, I should have laboured to have understood the minds of our Elders in New England about it; all the time I was there, I never heard the question moved, whether they did look on that Ordination they had here, as true (for substance) or not. But this I dare boldly affirme for them;

1 That they doe looke upon abundance of our Presbyteriall Ministers, as true Ministers of Christ.

2 I know that they will disapprove of the practice of some, who have separated from the Ministers, whom they have before chosen, and the godly Congregations, upon this notion, as I [Page 16]know some have done, I do ho­nour the grace of divers of those Christians who sepa­rated, but Satan got into an Angel of light, and deceived especially from that famous Congre­gation of Dedham, of which I dare say, that for a Parochial Congregation, there is not the like number of reall and visible Saints in any Congregation in England; I am sure there was not before this Separation was made; and for the Ministers I speake not of them, they are men well knowne. I wish I had nothing more to trouble me, then to live under that Ministry in that Congregation, I hope whereas now I am a sad man, I should be as chearfull as any man in England. Mr. Bur­roughs said, he could communicate in that Congregation, then it seemes hee did not question whether there were any true Ministers.

Object. But if you say, Our New England Ministers doe re­nounce their Ordination which they had here, for they are ordained againe.

Answ. See Answ. to 32. q. 70 Its true, they are ordained againe, but I never heard it was upon that ground, for let a Minister be ordained there in one Church, if there be cause of his removall, and so be elected in another Church, they ordaine him againe.

Thirdly, I can say this, our New England Ministers have often desired, and frequently admitted to preach in their Congregations, that went from hence, but were not ordained there.

But our Ministers of New England are here judged nothing worth, but are as contemptible as any, in the mouths of our Separatists, yet they are men of worth.

Secondly, I answer to what you say, It came through, and from the Romish Synagogue. If your argument have any force, you must cast it thus:

Those Ministers which stand by a Romish Institution, are no true Ministers of Christ. But the Ministers of England stand by a Romish Institution; Ergo, the Ministers of England are no true Mi­nisters of Christ.

The major you will grant, and if we can prove the minor, our Ministers shall utterly renounce their Ordination, I dare under­take for them; but the minor is very false, they stand by no Ro­mish Institution: for Ordination is none of their inventions, but instituted by the Lord Jesus himselfe, long before Antichrist was. But your Argument runs thus:

Those Ministers which stand by an Institution of Christ de­scending [Page 9]to them from the Apostles through the Church of Rome, they are no true Ministers of Christ.

But the Ministers of England stand by an Institution of Christ, descending to them from the Apostles through the Church of Rome, Ergo, They are no true Ministers.

This is the true meaning of your Argument, but the major is very false: shall the passing through Rome null the Institutions of Christ? did not the Scriptures, Sacraments, and what ever Or­dinances we now have, descend to us from the Apostles through Rome? Shall we therefore cast them away? That Argument runnes as strong against our Baptisme, and any other Ordinance, with which though the Church of Rome mingled their in­ventions, did they therefore null the Ordinance? the vessels that were once dedicated to God by his owne Institution, though they were put into the house of Nebuchadnezzars gods, and those that were fit, very like used by Belshazzar to drinke wine in, when he praised the gods &c. they were not so much as new cast againe, but carried to Jerusalem. Ezra 1.7. ad fin.

I pray what doe you thinke of the judgement of Mr. Johnson? a man great, I am sure, among the brethren of the Separation (though the Separatists in our dayes make a tush at the judge­ment of any man, yea, although he were of the Separation; but yet consider the reasons which swayed him, and then judge.) The case was this, One that was a Minister in the Church of Eng­land, was after chosen Teacher to a separate Congregation, with­out any new Imposing of hands, this he undertakes to justifie thus:

1 Imposition of hands is of God, and not an invention of man: It was not a postor threshold first brought by Antichrist into the Temple of God, but had therein afore Antichrist sate there.

2. Baptisme and Imposition of hands are joyned together among the prin­ciples of the foundation spoken of, Heb. 6.2. therefore it ought to be regarded.

3. Imposition of hands is in the Church of Rome still given to the office of the Ministry, and in the name of the Lord, as they doe also still administer Baptisme.

4. We found not either precept, example, or ground in the Scripture binding us to the repetition of it.

5. The Priests and Levites in Israel becoming unclean, when after­ward they were cleansed, retained still their places of being Priests, and Levites; and the children of the Priests and Levites succeeding after them, [...]id administer without a new anointing, or new imposition of hands &c. [Page 18]Thus then, as Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth opposed Rebaptiza­tion, because Baptisme is an Ordinance of God, which was had in the Church of Rome, before she fell into Apostasie, and hath been there continued ever since the Apostles times (how ever co­mingled with many inventions of their owne:) so Mr. Johnson defended the Ordination of that Minister, which he had in Eng­land, because Imposition of hands was in the Church of Rome from the Apostles times, before her Apostasie, and is there continued to this day, though mixed with many pollutions of their owne.

I pray onely note this, that whereas I say, they stand by their Ordination, I doe not meane that onely, but also they have the election of the people, of which I spake before, and that the Separatists cannot deny, which yet they make the greatest mat­ter in a Ministers call.

Thirdly, I answer, If this argument be of any force, it would rather prevaile against the first Reformers, as in other Nations, so against our first Reformers in England, who came newly out of Popery; but what is this to us, who have beene above ninety yeares out of that bondage, and have cast off their Government, Worship, and Doctrine (so farre as Antichristian) for a long time; but if our first Reformers were able enough to maintaine their call, then much more our Ministers.

Fourthly, but if you will throw away all that comes through Rome, let us see what course you will take, when you have denied all the Ordinances, that have beene administred for these ninety yeares in England [for if no Ministry, then cer­tainly no Authoritative preaching, no Sacraments] and thus you have renounced yuor Baptisme, which you had by these Ministers; what method will you take in your Reformation? how will you come to be re-baptized? you will tell me, You will cove­nant together, and then elect and ordaine a Minister, and he shall baptize: Of this more afterward.

But let me examine what you say at present; You will covenant together (supposing your selves to be Saints first) say you so? are you Saints by calling? how came you to be so? what did God call you immediately? No, you must say many (if not all) of you, who have any truth of grace, by the preaching of the word; what, by those Ministers from whom you separate, as no Ministers, because of their Ordination? hath the Lord so farre [Page 19]owned his despised members, as to make them the instruments to bring you to be visible Saints, fit to imbody or covenant, &c? and are these now no Ministers? are you the effect of their Ministeriall labours, and they no Ministers? Surely in this one thing you have overthrowne your selves; but then you say, you will ordaine him, this I will consider in its owne place; Then he shall baptize: but since he did renounce his owne baptisme also, who shall baptize him first? you must have a Minister to do that, to be sure he cannot doe it himselfe, nor none of you, for you are private persons; to administer the Lords Supper before you be baptised, is contrary to Scripture rules.

There was a report when I was in New England, that a Car­penter re-baptised Mr. Williams, In Iust. Mar. time none re­ceived the Supper, but such as were first bapti­sed, Apol. 2. Ius Divi. Apend. p. 269. and then he did re-baptize the rest: I do not stand to defend the thing whether it be true or no, but it was like enough to be true, and sutable to the other opi­nions and practises of that wilde generation. Where are we now?

Fifthly, that is very observable, which the London Ministers have added in the defence of their Ordination, ‘That in this Church of England, the corruptions which the Church of Rome would have introduced about Ordination of Ministers and other Ecclesiasticall affaires, were withstood and opposed by the Kings of England: Nor doe we read of any Ministers that were ordained by any Agents sent from Rome, but onely some idle ceremonies of Confirmation, or them that were ordai­ned by the Pall and the Ring brought thence into England.’ Thus far the London Ministers: In the margent they have set downe the Authours that prove it.

Sixtly, There might be another answer given by some, who are good Historians, [which I confesse I am not, wanting both time and such bookes] so farre as I can goe, I will. That the Churches in England were at first rightly gathered and consti­tuted, it is not to be doubted, Mart. 1. Vol. p. 237 last Edi­tion. the instruments of gathering be­ing Apostles or Apostolicall men, as is evident by Mr. Fox; nei­ther is it to be doubted, but they did ordaine officers in the Churches, for we read of Ministers and Bishops. The land fal­ling to the possession of the Saxons about the yeare 568. p. 147. the Story saith by them, all the Clergy and the Christian Ministers of the Britains were then utterly driven out, in so much that the Arch-bishops of London and Yorke went into Wales: thus [Page 12]long then it seemes the Ministers of England had no ordination from Rome; P. 149. this appeares also by Austine, who came into Eng­land in the yeare five hundred ninety eight, he about the yeare six hundred, P. 153. assembled the Bishops and Doctors of Britaine (so that still here were Ministers, but where their abode was, the story sets not downe, but supposed to be towards Wales,) and charged them to preach the Gospel to the English-men, and also that they should among themselves reform certain rites in their Church (so that still here were Ministers and Churches) speci­ally for keeping of Easter-tide, baptizing after the manner of Rome, &c. to which the Scots and Britaines would not agree (this shews they did not depend upon Rome.) Afterward there was another Synod gathered, where seven Bishops of Britaine were present; and though we finde a great battell fought pre­sently after, where the Britains were overcome, yet the Story doth not mention that the Ministers were all slaine there. Now the thing I aime at is this, that since there were so many Ministers and Bishops in England, who had their ordination by succes­fion from those Apostolical men, and not from Rome, and wee finde so many, when Austine came, why may we not suppose that these might againe preach the Gospel to the English-men, though at first they were opposite, when they had smarted for their folly? and why may we not suppose they might returne into England againe, especially into those parts neare Wales? also those who were driven out, as the Story saith they were, suppose into some other parts, might not they returne into England? also must we take the words of the Story, (All the Clergy and Christian Ministers were driven out) strictly so, as none at all were left, though latent, &c? those, who are good Historians, may helpe here, and it would be some answer to that ob­jection of our ordination coming from Rome, though unto me, the objection is very feeble, if this answer cannot be made out.

As for the Churches of England, being rightly at first gathe­red, Way of Ch. in N. E. Ch. 7. p. 111. as above mentioned; Mr. Cotton yeelds it, so as he saith, That all the work now is, not to make them Churches, which were none before, but to reduce, and restore them to their primitive Insti­tution, &c.

To that part of the Objection, They were ordained by Bishops; I pray what doe you thinke of Master Bradford, and the rest of [Page 13]those holy Ministers and Martyrs that were ordained by the Bishops in those dayes, Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, &c? was he an Anti-christian Minister, and all those Ministers, who were then ordained, though now they were scarce got out of the Popish Ceremonies? &c. the holy Martyrs then did never offer to se­parate from Mr. Bradford, and the rest, nor call them Anti­christian Ministers. I pray how many such Bradfords have you among you? Not all the Separatists in England can afford such a one; Christ cals him his faithfull Minister, but you say Mr. Bradford is none; cursed be that doctrine. Now if those Mini­sters were true Ministers, though they had an Episcopall Ordi­nation, then so are ours, notwithstanding their Ordination by Bishops. It is vaine to say those Bishops were godly men, so were ot ours: for it is a bold assertion to say, that none of the Bishops since have been godly men, no doubt there are divers in Heaven. And besides, it is absurd to thinke, that the truth and efficacy of an Ordinance depends upon the truth of Grace in him who doth administer it; as for Ceremonies, if you search, they were not cleare then, no more then our Bishops were.

It is a silly shift to say, They walked according to their light; I hope there was the same rule to judge of the truth of Ministers then, that is now; it was not their light which made them true Ministers, but the rule. But the truth of their Mini­stry was never questioned, till our Separatists rose up, who are not comparable to them in parts, or holinesse.

2 I pray, what doe you make of those Ministers who were ordained in the Primitive Churches? Cyp. Epis. 33, they were ordained in Cyprians time by Bishops, and Presbyters; and by Hieroms time the Bishops had ingrossed that power into their owne hands, as appeares by that speech of his, Excepting Ordination, Epist. ad. Evagr. what doth a Bishop that a Presbyter doth not? so that by this time it should seeme that the Presbyters were turned out, and the Bishops on­ly Ordained. It is possible this might be but in some Churches, for the fourth councell of Carthage ordered, That no Bishop should Ordaine without the councell of his Clergy, Can. 22. Can. 3. Now, what were these no Ministers? Anti-christ was not yet got into his Seat, for the yeares of his reigne had been expired before this time. It is strange, that those should be no true Ministers, who lived so neare the Apostles times, and under [Page 22]persecution also, as in Cyprians time; neither was Cyprian surely the first Bishop that did Ordaine, for there were Bishops before him; yea, besides this Ordination by Bishops, we finde the Pa­pists contending strongly for strange Rites, which they use in Ordination, and they say they were also used in those Primitive times: for the anointing of the hands of the Presbyter that is ordained, this they would prove from Cyprian, or at least the Author of The Card. worke of Ch. who shou ld seeme to be as old as Cy­prian; also from Eusebius Hist. Eccles. l. 10. c. 4. which place would seeme to favour it; and others there are, whom they quote. See Greg. De Val. to 4. d. 9. q. 5. Also for the shaving of the heads of their Ministers, this we finde indeed in August. time, Ep. 26. & Ep. 147. And this Calvin himselfe doth not deny to have been used then, and gives the reason why it was used; which Greg. de Val. scornes, and gives other reasons, To. 4. D. 9. q. 5. p. 3. If the Decret. Epistles of Anicetus be of any Authority, we shal finde it in his days, long before Augustin; and I wonder that Greg. Val. doth not quote him. I am apt to think, being they were so prone to Ceremonies in other Ordinances, that something was added to this also; Iust. l. 4. c. 19 Sect 27. and I marvel that in the fourth Coun­cell of Carthage, where they set down their rites in Ordinations of other officers, and some very ridiculous, that the ordination of Presbyters should be the most pure; but still with Bishops as well as Presbyters, which is the thing now in hand.

3 A Bishop, if you consider him meerly as a Bishop, was but a Minister, and set apart to doe the worke of a Minister, the same, which all other Ministers may doe; Bishops did Pray, Preach, Baptize, administer the Lords Supper, Ordaine, Suspend, Ex­communicate, and these things other Ministers doe, and may doe; that he did lift up himselfe above other Ministers, that was his errour, that he would take upon him the sole power of Ordination, and Excommunication, this was his errour; but as the addition of an human invention did not null the Ordinances, (as suppose only growne persons had been baptized, and that by dipping, and after dipping they had been signed with the signe of the Crosse, would this have nulled the Ordinance in the Anabaptists esteeme?) no more this usurpation of the po­wer of administring these Ordinances did null a Bishop, so as he was no Minister; the Ordinances were, and are Christs in­stitutions. Indeed you may call him, an Over-growne Presbyter, [Page 23]but a Presbyter. 3 Ep. Ioh ver. 10. Diotrophes loving of pre-eminence did justly de­serve reproofe, and John did no doubt deale with him, but yet for present did not deny him to be a Minister, though a corrupt one; for the sole power of Ordination, they tell us, It is the order of the Church of England, as of the Councell of Carthage, that when a Presbyter is Ordained, all the Presbyters that are present shall lay hands. As for the sole power of Excommunication, though it was an errour grosse enough, yet by the 17. Canon, Concil. Sardic. Ofius who was the cause of that Ga­non being made, was also at the Councel of Nice. it should seeme the Bishops by that time had got that power to excommunicate alone; which Canon provides a remedy for a person wrongsully excommunicated by his Bishop, to got releefe by Appeales; now if that corruption had got in so early, long before Anti-christ had got to his Seat, no wonder though it was found among our Bishops, yet I hope they were true Ministers whom they Ordained. As a Bishop was a Lord Bishop, his Lordship was but a meere civill addition annexed to the Bishoprick by Regallfavour, his Lordship was no ingredient into Ordination.

4 The Lawes of this Realme doe account nothing Divine in a Bishop, but his being a Presbyter, Lond. vind. 125. Dr. Seam. answ. to Diat. p. 85. and therefore the Parlia­ment in their Ordinance for Ordination, tels us, that they did or­daine as Presbyters, not as Bishops, much lesse as Lord Bishops; yea, I have heard a reverend Minister (now Pastor of a Congrega­tionall Church in Essex) say, that when the Bishop ordained him, he told him, I doe ordaine you as I am a Presbyter.

5 The Ministers of England are ready to acknowledge those defects, and corruptions which did cleave to their entring into the Ministry by the Bishops; heare their owne words, London Vindica. p. 124. We doe not deny, but that the way of Ministers entring into the Ministry by the Bishops, had many defects in it, for which they ought to be humbled; but we adde, that notwithstanding all the accidentall corruptions, yet it is not substantially, and essentially corrupted. They acknowledge then the errour, and desire to be humbled for it: what more would you have, God will accept of this I doubt not, and why not you? How to mend Dr. Seamans Divinity I know not, where you have also the errour acknowledged implicitely (for it is in an­swer to this Objection) then giving his judgement in the case: When sinne cleaves to the manner of Calling, Answer to Diat. p. 85. through the generall errour or corruption of all sorts of people who are concerned in it, &c. it is not­otherwise to be invalidated here below, then by doctrinall Censure, and Re­pentance, [Page 16]and not by iteration. Repentance through Christs Bloud doth take away corruption out of Gods fight, and will it not (when they are so ingenuous) out of your sight?

6 There is a maxime taken up among the Independents, Many may truly beare the name, yea they owne it, and pra­ctise ac­cordingly. (yea and others) and it goeth for as good Divinity as any the Gospel hath, viz. That errours in Non-fundamentals must be borne withall in Churches, we must labour indeed to convince people of such, but if they will not be so convinced, we must not proceed any further to cast them out. I have heard the New England Ministers sharply censu­red, because they have excommunicated for some errours, ( i.e. denying of some Ordinances) which are supposed to fall with­in the compasse of Non-fundamentals; This maxime is cryed up among the Separatists. For the Thesis it selfe (considering into what a narrow compasse Fundamentals are pent up) I thinke it to be Apocryphall Divinity, and just it is with God to let in errours in Fundamentals, when such Church, and Truth­destructive Principles are drunke in by godly Christians; yet let us bring this rule, and lay it to the case in hand: I hope they doe not make rules for themselves, if it be a true Christian Rule, it is for all Christians; Here then we have men qualified by God with Ministeriall, and (abundance of them) personal gifts, they have the election or consent of the people, they are separated to the worke of the Ministry by persons, who were Ministers, but did erroneously assume too much to themselves, now grant that here is an errour, yet I hope it is not in a fun­damentall point. Some great Divines call Ordination but an Adjunct, and your selves lesse, you thinke it a Toy: so then if you must not be separated from a Church for errours in Non­fundamentals, then neither ought you to separate from a true Church for an errour, which is not fundamentall. Certainly if that rule hath place any where, then here: you will by this rule keepe Anabaptists, Anti-Sabbatarians, Antinomians, (truly such) Anti-Psalmists, Arminians, &c. within your Churches, and not cast them out; but (forsooth) a little errour (in comparison of them) and that acknowledged, in the Ministers, that is ground sufficient to cast off them, and call them Anti­christians, &c. yet there are no conscientious men but these; the Separatists Gospel will afford Rules for them, but not for other Christians.

As you trouble the Ministers here, so I doubt they will [Page 25]trouble you in the Ordinations of your Ministers; that is, to make it cleare to them, that private men have power to Ordaine: I have seene it my selfe, when two private men have imposed their hands upon him, who was to be their Pastor. Another I know, whom a Carpenter and a Taylor Ordained, with impo­sition of hands; I doubt the Ministers will put you hard to it, to prove that this is according to the Rule, (yea, when other Ministers [but of other Churches] were present, these have im­posed hands.) If we consult with the Gospel, we shall finde it rather to favour a Bishop (though no Lordly one) by the ex­ample of Timothy and Titus, (from whom our Bishops proved their Superiority, and sole power of Ordination) to Ordaine, then private men, and that in the presence of divers other Mi­nisters. I am sure this will be hard to prove from Scripture, I shall speake a few words to this point afterward. Suppose any of the Bishops had been of that opinion, that none but persons growne, and making confession of their Faith ought to be Bap­tized, and they would Baptize only by dipping, would not the Anabaptists have judged this to be true Baptisme? would they null this Baptisme, because he was a Bishop, since he was a Mini­ster, set apart to that worke? &c. as Austin baptized many thus, after he had been in England a while, who yet was an Arch-Bishop, was that no true Baptisme? I doe not thinke that the Anabaptists (if they have any braines in their heads) will deny that Baptisme were nul; if that were good, so is Ordination for the substance of it. If there have been no true Ministers, nor Or­dinances, nor Churches, but where there hath been no humane mixtures, nor wicked persons, then there hath been but few Ministers, Ordinances, or Churches, since there was a Church up­on earth, and if there ought to be separation from such Mini­sters and Churches, then we should have found Separatists e­nough; how hardly was Superstition kept out in the Church of the Jewes before the Captivity, say, how many yeares? Alsle. Chron. p. 2153. Goodw. Mo. Ar. l. 1. c. 10. Chemnitius in 10. Ioh. takes theeves there to be the Pharisees, for their order was not insti­tuted by God, nor brought in by the Prophets, but only a humane invention, and through their owne boldnesse. After­ward, when Christ came, were they cleare? what thinke you then of corrupt Caiphas the High Priest, his corrupt entring into, and his continuance in the place for one yeare? So the Phari­sees, a Generation that God never instituted, their Schoole [Page 26]began, some say, two hundred and forty yeares, some say more, before Christ, and for their Superstitious inventions they were not barren in them: but did Christ, so soon as he came to Preach call away the people, and bid them separate? here are corrupt Officers, &c. No, we finde no such word; nay, he bids then heare, Matth. 23. After Christ, I pray tell me, how long did the Churches continue without Superstitious mixtures, I doubt you will finde the Church hath not been long free, but we doe not finde separation presently, and nulling of Ministers, as now Men should doe well to give us a precept, or example out of the Word, where Ordinances have been dispensed true for the sub­stance, though some humane mixtures have been joyned to them, that therefore they were iterated. If they cannot give us a direct precept or example, shew us it by a necessary conse­quence from Scripture. I wonder men should be so forward to iterate Baptisme, and Ordination, as these Separatists call for, without Scripturall grounds.

9 There are hundreds of Ministers in England, who were not Ordained by Bishops, but you separate from those also; they had the election of the people first, then with fasting and pray­er, solemnly set apart to the worke by divers godly and lear­ned Divines, who were against Bishops, yet these are also scor­ned by your selves, as much as the others; but (forsooth) be­cause they were Ordained by Bishops, and had not renounced their Ordination, and taken their Ordination from you, there­fore that infection spreads even to all Generations. Out of what I have said, I may pick up some answers to this, but for troubling the Reader; and the truth is, they are in some sence unreasonable men I deale with; but this let me say, it is strange, that when an Ordinance is purged in it selfe, and those who ad­minister it, renounce what defects have cleaved to their owne Ordination, only for the substance owning it (as another Ordinance may be corrupted, or rather have corruptions annexed to it, but not nulled by those accidentall corruptions) that this infecti­on should adhere so strongly, that it cannot be mended, but by nulling of it. Friends, this cavilling will not doe in the Day of Judgement. Besides, I pray give me an instance where it was ever practised, that persons, that were not Baptised, did Ordaine a Minister? If you aske me, What need that question, for we are Baptised, therefore it doth not concerne us? By whom I [Page 27]pray? If you say, by the Ministers, then I desire no more; if they were so farre Ministers as to administer Baptisme to you, then they may well administer Ordination to us; renounce therefore the Baptisme you had by them, so I am sure you can­not ordaine; and when you are regularly re-baptised, and can warrant your Act, and prove that you have the power to Ordaine, then we will listen to you.

For my owne Ordination, it was in the face of my people, the day was spent in fasting, and Prayer, those who carried on the worke were Mr. Dan. Rogers, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Ranew, with other godly Ministers, who joyned with them in the imposing of hands (the Ministers lived about me) I never saw that Ordi­nance carried on with more solemnity in my life, the people shewed their election by suffrage, holding up their hands; all was done according to the Pattern; but yet I am a man as much scorned as other men, who were Ordained by Bishops. (I can submit to God in that scorne that these cast upon me, for I de­serve it at his hands;) only there was a foule errour commit­ted at my Ordination, and it is told up and downe by some of this kinde, against whom I write, and I pray what is it? This, The Ministers imposed hands in my Ordination; this hath been talk­ed of as a strange thing; but let me answer for the Ministers, it was no errour, much lesse such a great one as you make it.

1 If private men, Carpenters and Taylors may impose hands, why may not Ministers? but the former have done it. Ergo.

2 All the Ordinations that ever I saw in New England were performed with imposition of hands; I have seene Deacons or­dained thus.

3 If you be wiser then the Elders in New England, Answ. to the 32. que. p. 67. Survey of Church Dise. p. 2. p. 74. and Master Hooker, then over-throw them, for they conceive it nearest to the institution.

4 If you observe the examples in the New Testament, which are our Guides in Church affaires, we shall finde Ordinations have been thus performed; as Acts 6.6. Act. 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Tim. 5.22. Heb. 6.2. Laying on of hands; Which place, by Classicall men, Congregationall men, and Separatists, is in­terpreted of Ordination. I doe not here bring in the practise of Churches in former times, because I intend not to handle the controversie, Whether imposition of hands be necessarily required in ordi­nation? [Page 28]but bring you in as many examples from Scripture, where there were Ministers Ordained without imposition of hands; as also the practise of other true Churches Orthodox and sound, who doe Ordaine without, &c. or else be ashamed of your ignorance, and charge not those men with errour where none was, but a true following the patterne.

The substance and essence then of Ordination being this, That persons qualified Ministerially be set apart, or separated for the worke of the Ministry by persons in Office [ordinarily it must be thus, what may be done extraordinarily, when no Officers can be had is another case] the Ministers in England have that Ordinance for the substance, and they have the election and consent of the people, (it is hardly to be supposed that every individuall per­son in a Parish will consent to every godly Minister, but con­sent there is) hence these two concurring to the Call, which is the forme of a Minister, many Presbyteriall Ministers are true Ministers. I dare say more, but I am sure now I save my selfe. But I have not done with Ordination yet, I shall meet with it once againe afterwards. Let us now come and try the se­cond ground for separation, scil. The Worship of God; the fault here must be reduced to one of these three heads; ei­ther;

1 Because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God in these Churches. Or,

2 Because the Ordinances of God are mixed with humane inventions, that they cannot partake of them without sinne. Or,

3 Because here are other Ordinances set up in the Churches then ever Christ did institute. I cannot conceive any more.

For the first; Suppose it were so, that there were a defect of some Ordinances, is that a sufficient ground for separation? Mr. Hooker saith no. If a Father of a Family wants a Rod in his house, The pre­face to Survey of Church Discip. is it ergo no family? there may be some disorder in the house for want of good Government, yet a family. Divers Di­vines of great note conceive by that text, Nehem. 8.17, 18. That the Church of the Jewes did omit the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles almost the space of a thousand yeares, the Arke was absent from the Tabernacle from the time of Eli, to the time of David, 1 Sam. 4.11. compared with, 2 Sam. 6, 17. and it was a great fault; the Scribes rejected the Baptisme of John, [Page 29]but where doe you finde any separation all this while, that the godly should not joyne with that Church, and partake in what Ordinances they had? But this objection hath no place in these Churches, for Prayer, Preaching, Administration of the Sacraments, yea, Discipline they had in the Episcopall dayes, they did suspend from the Lords Supper, and the Bishops gave the Ministers power, but suspension is the lesser Excommunica­tion, and now to be sure there are none wanting (at least should not be,) if the Ministers were not hindred in setting up all the Ordinances.

Obj. No, say you, the Classicall Churches have no explicite Covenant for the forme of them, they will not admit it into their Churches, therefore we separate.

I shal meet with this in another place, only for the present dis­prove what Mr. Hooker hath said, and the former examples I have given you; but yet you will have a hard peece of work, to prove this to be a sufficient ground for your separation, as af­terwards I hope I shall make good.

For the second, Humane mixtures in Ordinances.

This indeed was the ground of the old Separatists, yet in those dayes many holy and learned Divines wrote against the Separation; but in these dayes that stumbling blocke is remo­ved; and this let me say, that if you read over all the Church-stories, since there was a Church upon the earth, there cannot be found any example of such separatists, as are now amongst us; the old Donatists had their Ministers, yea, Bishops as well as Presby­ters; the separate Churches of later dayes had their Ministers, and how strictly did they maintaine and practise all those Or­dinances, which ours laugh at, as singing of Psalmes, Infant-Baptism, observation of the Sabbath, and such opinions as those learned and godly men, Mr. Ainsworth, Robinson, Johnson, did abhorre, are swallowed downe among ours; so that these men cannot ground their practice from any example heretofore; and as for the Scripture, if they can finde any grounds there, I must con­fesse I am altogether ignorant in the Scripture.

Suppose there should be some human mixtures (though for my part I know of none) are all the Ordinances so polluted: prea­ching and prayer were kept pure in the Episcopall dayes; why doe you not communicate with them in those Ordinances, which are pure?

If you object, The Ordinances indeed are pure, but those who joyne in those Ordinances are not pure, therefore we separate.

This properly belongs to the third head (the Congregation) I shall there answer to this Cavill.

Thirdly, for the setting up such Ordinances as Christ never did, I cannot imagine where you will be, unlesse you meane Infant-baptisme, and singing of Psalmes, for I finde these are spoken against very much. But are these fundamental errors, if they bee errours, have you beene forced to baptise your Infants, or sing Psalmes? are you not at your choice whether you will or not? do not many people sit in Congregations, and not sing at all? not but that I conceive Church-members ought to be regarded in this, and called to an account, though they had need be hand­led tenderly, if otherwise they seeme to be godly, yet their being hopefully godly, is not a sufficient ground to keep them from Church-censures, unlesse all circumstances being confide­red they appeare to be truly conscientious, men of humble spirits, not selfe-willed, and desiring forbearance and patience in clearing of the point, then I know Ministers would beare with such a long time; but to have persons runne into these errours, and let alone, as if they were things of no concern­ment; truly by what rules you will loose two Ordinances, you may loose foure; Officiall preaching is cryed downe, and Church Discipline also, by the Erastians, no outward forme of Government, which I suppose was the scope of Mr. Dells Ser­mon before the Parliament; and so I thinke it is that which Rob. Purnell in his short Prophesie of the down-fall of Presbytery and Independency aimes at, that there should be no externall forme of Church-Government, but only the government of the spirit within; and for all Ordinances, some are above them, who have been Members of Congregationall Churches, inso­much that when the Brethren came to chuse an Officer, a Mason rose up and opposed it, professing he lived immediatly upon Christ, and he owned none; neither was he alone I be­leeve: but if you take away all the Ordinances, how we shall know there is a God in the world, I know not; to be sure, we shall not know by the dealings of these men: I know so much by them, that one had as good deale with the Indians as with some of them, so that in conclusion we shall have brave Chur­ches without ordinances.

As for Infant-baptisme, this is not a place for me to prove it to be an Ordinance of God; what the Adversaries can say is summed up in Mr. Tombes, a man, I heare, esteemed truly godly on all hands, and for his Learning he shewes himselfe to be a Schollar, it is pitty the mans parts were defiled in maintaining such a wretched opinion, as Mr. Hooker calls it. I confesse, Master Tombes's abilities are such, that I may hold the Candle to him, but yet let me say this, I can easily discerne Mr. Tombes to dis­pute more like a Sophister, then a Christian, that did desire to see truth. Mr. Marshall tells him, and not without cause, In his de­fence, &c. p. 247. Your fa­culty is farre better in darkening, slurring, and plundering the Argu­ments of your Adversarie, then in making good your owne. It is the happinesse Mr. Marshall hath above many, that in his preaching, and so in printing, he can convey his minde to his Hearer, or Reader so, as the weakest may understand; how then his Ar­guments come to be so darke, to so learned a man, as Mr. Tombes, I cannot conceive, if he had dealt candidly; but when Master Tombes hath answered Mr. Marshall, Cotton, Baxter, Cobbet, Hooker, Holmes, Geree, &c. then we shall bethinke our selves of new Arguments, but these Worthies have maintained that Ordi­nance with that strength, that I beleeve the contrary opinion will rarely, or never take with an intelligent head, and a so­ber, godly heart.

For singing of Psalmes, this is not a place neither to follow that Question: whether it be an Ordinance of God, I never heard of any that writ against it, except one, whom Mr. Cotton hath answered, and I thinke sufficiently enough. When Master Cotton is silenced, then we shall bethinke our selves concerning that Ordinance: I heare of others that have printed for it, but Master Cottons peece is all I have seene concerning that subject, Pro or con.

Only because there was a Sectary, In Colche­ster. that in a Shop scoffingly asked me, To what purpose singing of Psalmes was? the mans spirit I saw very unsavoury, and the place not convenient to discourse; I gave him no answer, but shall now give him the grounds that lead me to beleeve it is an Ordinance of Christ, and let him confute them. I cannot avoyd it, but I must touch divers things that have been touched before, but what I doe, shall be very briefe.

1. If singing of Psalmes were an Ordinance under the Old [Page 32]Testament, and not repealed in the New Testament [being not Typicall, or Ceremoniall, &c.] then it is also an Ordinance under the New Testament.

But the Antecedent is true, ergo the Consequent is true.

For the Antecedent, that it was an ordinance then, the Ad­versaries deny not, and as other ordinances, which then were in use, and not repealed (as Prayer, Preaching, &c.) are ordi­nances now under the New Testament, why should not sing­ing of Psalmes also be continued an ordinance still?

They object, Singing of Psalmes with the voyce, is but a type of singing Psalmes with the heart.

I answer; If indeed it were typicall, then it were some ground to beleeve it was repealed; we read your Dictates, but we read no proofes, give us your texts to prove it was typicall, else your Dictates will not take with us; That which makes me strongly to beleeve the contrary is this, That Paul, and Silas, when none but they were in the Prison, yet they sang, Act. 16.25. now this was ill done of them, if it were Typicall, yet to keep it in practise, when they were alone, however in other points and Ceremonies the Apostles did condescend as farre as they could to the Jewes, Epia. 19. giving the Ceremonies (being now dead) as Augustine saith, an honourable buriall, yet that Paul and Silas being now alone without Jewes, having no such temp­tation, but may keep their liberty, should practise a Typicall ordinance, beleeve it who will, for I cannot. When I had fra­med my answer, looking into Mr. Cotton, I perceived that he mentions this of their singing in answer to this Cavill, P. 24. and gi­veth more answers, whither I referre the Reader.

2 The second ground that moves me is the expresse Scrip­ture, Ephes. 5.19. & Col. 3.16. speaking one to another in Psalmes, [...] i.e. [...] saith Beza, as the word is used, Ephes. 4. ult. [...] forgiving one another; so in Col. 3. [...] our Transtation there renders it, one another: Loquentes inter vos mutuò, Beza, so Piscator, so Zanchy: When drunkards are full of wine, then they begin to sing their Songs, saith he; so Christians filled with this wine, have these Spirituall Songs, Psalmes, &c. to sing; for the difference between these, see our English Annotations, or Hiero. in Loc.

Severall Objections are here made, which I shall not study to answer, only in a word.

1 They say, The text doth not say, sing one to another, but speake one to another; the Psalmes dwelling in their hearts, they were to dispense them in way of teaching; but as for singing, he maketh no mention of that untill he came to teach them, the manner of dispensing the Word of Christ [ a darke expression] unto God in the end of the verse, and that is making melody in the heart.

Master Cotton answers with a grave reproofe; ‘That men should rather bow their judgements and practises to Scripture Language, then bow the sence of the Scripture to their owne conceptions against the Language of the Scrip­ture; for saith he, it is one thing to speake one to another in Psalmes, and Hymnes, and spirituall Songs, as is done in sing­ing, and another thing to teach one another out of Psalms, &c. It is true, they were to teach one another out of the Psalmes, and the scope of Paul will reach that; but if he had meant only so, he would not have said, Speake yee one to another, In Psalmes, but Out of the Psalmes, as is the Scripture phrase, &c.’

2 To me it seemeth strange, if that were all Pauls meaning, why should Paul mention only those parts of the Word which use to be sung? Why doth he not mention the Prophets, Isaiah, &c. as also the New Testament, to teach one another out of them? Are there not as excellent Truths, gracious Promises, to be found in those Prophets, and worthy for Christians to be instructed in, as in the Psalmes, or other Songs that we finde of Moses, Deborah, &c? but for Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all those Pro­phets, besides other parts of the Old and New Testament, they were never wont to be sung in the Church, but only these which Paul mentions in both places, not adding any portion of Scrip­ture more in the Epist. to the Colossians, then to the Ephesians, therefore I cannot beleeve that should be the meaning, as the Objector saith.

3 The Apostle mentions singing we see presently, now if any thing can be made out of what the Objector saith, it may pos­sibly be this; That Paul would have them teach one another the sence and scope of a Psalme, that all may understand the meaning of the Psalme they sing [as is the practise of some Mi­nisters, if they be to sing a Psalme that is more darke, then in a few words they give the people to understand the meaning of the Psalme they sing] and so sing with understanding, 1 Cor. 14, 15. I say, Why may not this be something of the meaning? I leave [Page 34]it to more able heads to judge. But this doth not exclude singing

But whereas he conceives singing should be only the making melody in the heart, Hieron, in Colos. 3. Nusquam legimus aliquem sine voce cantasse, unde necesse est hic, in corde, ex corde, in­telligi, &c. I pray let him heare what an old Commenta­tor said long agoe, upon the words; We read no where that any one sung without a voyce, wherefore it is necessary that in the Heart here, he understood from the Heart. viz. That we sing not only with the mouth, but with the heart, So Beza, In your heart, i. e. Serio cordis affectu, non autem linguâ duntaxat, neque enim in corde idem hic declarat atque intus & apud se, cum mentio fiat canendi in caetu. So o­ther Divines, as Calvin, Zanchy, &c. whom I forbeare to name.

The same text also affords a good ground for singing Davids Psalmes, with other spirituall Songs recorded in Scripture; or else I desire them to give me a reason, why Paul should direct us to the very Titles of Davids Psalmes, and yet not meane Davids Psalmes, any one that hath the least taste of the Hebrew Lan­guage knowes this. Some of them are called [...] Psalms, the word [...] is used about forty times in Davids Psalmes, I doe not stand upon the exact number. [...] Hymnes, the Book of Davids Psalmes is named by this word [...] so [...] Spirituall Songs, See Buxto. Concord. Exod. 15. this is frequent in Davids Psalms; also Deborah useth this word, Judg. 5.12. so now it seemes strange that Paul should point us to these, and yet we must not sing them, which were sung before.

The third ground that moves me, is the example I finde in the New Testament, of Christ himselfe, with his Apostles, Matth. 26.30. they sung a Hymne; he did not sing it be­tween the Passeover and the institution of the Supper, as be­ing a Typicall thing, and so let it be joyned to the Passeover, as the Jewes did; but after he had instituted that Ordinance, which must last to the end of the world, and they received the Bread and Wine, then he and they sung, as some conceive six Psalmes, Beza in Loc. beginning at 112. to 117. whence it is the practise of Churches, following the patterne, to sing after the receiving of the Supper.

So the example of Paul and Silas, Act. 16, 25. [...] Hym­nos canebant Deo, saith Beza, or Hymnis laudabant Deum, Piscator, and Pasor, they praised God with Hymnes; that which some object, the text saith, they sang praises, not Psalmes; this is very poore, besides the originall word, how should one sing praises to God but in some Psalme, spirituall Sons, &c. for Praise, if [Page 35]you take it properly as distinct from honour and glory, is but the honourable making mention of another, and that externally by tongue or pen; also that text, Heb. 13.15. by him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, &c. in­timates as much.

And this text over-throws that conceit of singing only in the heart, which one that was a member of the Church of Rowly in New England had taken up, and upon that ground, and some o­ther notions he had, denied singing, and maintained (as well as he could) that singing of Psalmes was no Ordinance of God. I doe not know how this mans opinion came to be knowne, for had he kept his owne counsell, I suppose none should much have taken notice of him, which makes me thinke it was of his owne venting at first; our Elders laboured with him to convince him (the Elders of Ipswich, besides his owne Pastor) this text was alledged to prove singing with an Audible voyce, for they sang, and the Prisoners heard him: yet this man could not [or rather would not, for the thing is plaine as any one may understand] be convinced of the thing; the man af­ter long labouring with him, but to no purpose, for he was te­nacious in his owne opinion, and as Hieron. said of Jovinianus, Non est contentus nostro, i. e. humano more loqui, altius quiddam aggre­ditur; High flowne in his notions. The Elders seeing that obstinacy was joyned to his errour, they concluded, that either they must cast that Ordinance out of the Church, or else cast him out of the Church, and so the Church of Rowley did cast him out. I know they have been censured for this Act by some here, but at the Day of Judgement they will give as comfortable an account for maintaining of the Ordinances of Christ, as they shall doe, who through their maxime of errours in Non-fundamentalls, make way to loose all the Ordinances, and then where is the Church?

From this example of Paul and Silas we may argue, if two may sing Hymnes or Psalmes together, then foure may, so forty, the number hinders not, for the voyces here of many are no hinderance to the Ordinance, but rather they help to stirre up the affections one of another; as in those, who are filled with wine, two singing together, or foure, doe not hinder their conceited mirth. So Christ and his eleven Apostles sang together.

Whether will these men allow one Christian to sing a Psalme [Page 36]alone by himselfe, methinkes the texts and examples mentio­ned, together with Jam. 5.13. Is any man merry, [...] let him sing Psalmes, are so plaine, as no rationall man can deny it; But if one may, then the Church may. There is no act of Worship which any member of the Church is bound to performe, but the Church is bound to performe; but on the contrary it is not true, that what worship the Church doth performe, a member of Church can, or may; for instance for the first part, Me­ditation needs no Organ of the body, and therefore I leave that. But doth a Member of the Church Pray, so doth the whole Church: doth he read the Scriptures? so they are read in the Church; doth he fast and pray? so doth the Church; doth he sing a Psalme? so doth the Church; but it is not true on the contrary, as appeares in the Sacraments, Preaching, Discipline, &c. Neither is that place, Revel. 15.2, 3. of small force, to prove singing to be an Ordinance, Exposit. Hos. 2.15. p. 525. Those who overcame the Beast, sung the Song of Moses; This saith Mr. Burroughs I note, because hereby we may see that singing is an Ordinance in the Church of God, not only in the time of the Law, but in the time of the Gospel, &c. he was speaking of the text before.

4 The fourth ground that moves me is this [I know not how it will take with others, but with me it is something] Psal 92. The title saith, it is a Psalme, or Song for the day of Sab­bath; it is cleare, that one way of sanctification of the Sabbath was by singing of Psalmes; two of the words that Paul uses in Ephes. 5.19. are in this Title [...] Psalme, Spirituall Songs; will any say, this Psalme was only for those times, but now is abolished with the Jewish Sabbath? what, is that admirable promise, in the thirteenth, and fourteenth verses vanished, and of no use to us? Should not Christians apply it, and plead it now, when as they are planted in Gods house, and attending on him on our Christian Sabbath? have not we as much need of the Promise as they? this with me hath much prevailed; if we owne a Christian Sabbath, singing of Psalmes may well be owned also for an Ordinance of God now, as well as then.

5 The fifth is the presence of the Spirit of God with his people in the use of this Ordinance; for the proofe of what I say, let thousands of Gods people speake, if they have not found God in the Ordinance; I will not goe so farre as Au­gustin, [Page 37]but our Fathers, Confes. l. 9 c. 6. & l. 10. c. 33. who used it in their families more then some of us doe, I am sure they found God, and so have many now in these dayes; those who have not found God in it, they may cavill indeed, but let them be rather humbled, that God hath not given them, what others have tasted; those who doe frequently finde God in this Ordinance, they will not so slight­ly, and scornfully speake of it, as that Sectary did to me; but if God had usually manifested his presence with his Churches under the Old and New Testament, in the using of this Ordi­nance, this with the former Scriptures alledged prevaile with me, to beleeve it is a Gospel ordinance still.

6 The last ground that moves me, is the practise of the Pri­mitive Churches: Antiquity after Scripture is as a Cypher after a Figure, and doth increase the number; that singing was fre­quent among those Christians I finde it recorded.

1 Eusebius reporteth out of Philo, the Lives, manners, &c. of the religious men in Aegypt; Marke being sent into Aegypt, Eccles. hist. lib. 2. c. 17 as saith the story, to preach Christ, he there converted many, whose conversation (as I said) Philo Judaeus, a very learned man at that time, sets forth in commendation of the Christians: Hierom al­so relates this out of Philo Ora­tioni vaca­tur & Psalmis. Catal. script. Ecclesiast. among other things this he reporteth; They contemplate not only Divine things, but they make grave Canticles, and Hymnes unto God, in a more sacred rime of every kind of meeter and verse. This Philo (a Hebrew) flourished about the yeare forty, being sent of an Em­bassage to Caius Caligula about that time; so then this was their practise in the Apostles times, Philo must needs be borne, and well growne in Christs time.

2 For Tertullian, Mine in Paris print, anno 1580. there are two Testimonies brought out of him for singing of Psalmes, the one is out of Apol. c. 2. the Letter which Plinius Secundus wrote to Trajan in behalfe of the Church, where he mentions the practise; the other is out of Cap. 39. Apol. shewing the Discipline of the Christians, and there it is mentioned; but I finde two other places in him be­sides these as cleare as those; one is, l. 2. ad uxorem, having spoken strongly against Christians marrying with Infidels, he shewes the contrary, how good it is for Christians to marry with Christians, and among other things this he mentions; So­nant inter Duos Psalmi & Hymni, & mutuò provocant quis melius Deo sua canet; but most cleare is that place, Cap. 3. De Animâ, as for his opinion De effigie animae, I leave that; but there he makes [Page 38]mention of a Sister of their Church, who had the gifts of Revelations, which it seemes shee had in the Church on the Lords Day, As the Scriptures are read, or Psalmes are sung, he reckons up other Ordinances, Prayer, &c. then matter for visions were administred, &c. Now this is most cleare, it was in the Congregation, for when the people were gone (exercises being finished) then it seems she was wont to tell (the officers I suppose he means) what revelations she had, which they no­ted exactly. Tertullian then is so plaine and full for this practise, that none can doubt whether the Churches used this Ordinance or no.

Socrates Scholast. speaking of the Hymns, which Chrysost. appointed his own people to sing in opposition to the Arians, Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 8. in the end of the Chapter tells us that Ignatius, a man very familiar with the Apostles, saw a vision of Angels which extolled the blessed Tri­nity with Hymnes, that were sung interchangeably, and deli­vered unto the Church of Antioch, the order and manner of singing expressed in the vision; so he would make Ignatius the Author of Anthemes: I somewhat doubt whether that manner of singing was so ancient, but that singing was, I doubt not, then in practise.

4. Quest. & Resp. Orth. q. 107. Just. Martyr (or whosoever was the Authour of that booke) shews it was in use in that time, setting downe with all the benefit that comes by singing.

So that in the Apostles times, and the ages next to the Apo­stles, we finde singing was in use.

If we come a little lower to the year three hundred sixty four I finde in 15. Canon, Concil. Laodic. none were allowed to sing praeter Canonicos Psaltes; here was a corruption got in by this time, crosse to the command of Paul in his Epistles to the Ephes. and Coloss. but this implies that singing had beene before in use in the Churches, and that the people were wont to sing, that now they limit singing to the Canonicall Psalmists.

That Athanasius used singing in his Church, appeares also in August. Confess. l. 10. c. 33. also that the Psalmes of David were sung then appeares in the same place, and in his 119. Epist. c. 18. where he affirmes, that for singing of Psalmes and Hymnes, we have the examples and precepts of Christ, and the Apostles, blaming withall the Donatists, that learning Davids Psalmes, they sung Hymnes of their owne inventing, &c.

As for those, who would allow singing, if it might be of some spirituall song composed by some Saint now upon some occasions, I doe not now trouble my selfe about them, onely I wish them to make better songs, then that brother of one of the Churches in London [I doe forbeare to name whose Church it was] who composed a song to be sung on the day of Thanksgiving for the overthrow of the Scots at Dunbar; I heard the Song read over, and the party who read it, told me it was sung in the Church: I deny not but the man who composed it, might have an honest heart, but sure he had but a shallow head, in comparison of what men should have, that compose such Songs.

If these be not grounds sufficient to answer that scoffer, let him give me better grounds to prove singing of Psalmes is no Gospel Ordinance.

So much for the second branch, the worship can be no ground of separation. Now I come to the third.

Let us see if there be sufficient ground for separation in re­spect of the Congregation. The Congregations are very corrupt they say, hence they thinke they are bound to separate, and alleadge these places, 2 Cor. 6.17. Revel. 18.4.

1. That there are very many corrupt persons in the Presby­teriall Congregations, there are none deny it (and I wish the Independent Churches have not some corrupt persons also a­mongst them) you doe not heare them justifie all their Church­members, but you shall finde them complaining of this cor­ruption, and endeavouring by degrees to correct it, yea, I be­leeve, had they power in their hands, they would soone shew what they would doe: I pray heare some of their words, Vindica. p. 115. the London Ministers, Though we dare not make separation from a true Church, yet we doe make separation in a true Church. Read over the whole Answer, and you may perceive their mindes, P. 76. before this in their exhortation to the Ministers and Elders, you have this one branch of their exhortation, That they would labour to make their Congregations pure as well as peaceable, following after piety, as much as after verity and unity, that all your people under your charge, may be vi­sible Saints at least, Review of Mr Hoo a p. 89. ad 97. you may feele how the pulses of these men beat. I observe also Mr. Cawdry differing very little from Mr. Hooker, in this point about visible Saints, being the materiall cause of a Church; where you may see what he would have, if Discipline were once stablished; that the Congregations are [Page 40]thus corrupt, See him also p. 202 the fault is not in them, but in the old Hierar­chy, whose Errours while they goe about to mend, you goe away from them.

2. I am sure, very many Parochiall Congregations in Eng­land, have both visible and reall Saints: must these and the Ministry be cast off for the sake of other corrupt ones? whom they would gladly also mend, if they could, or else purge them out.

3. I wish you would give us precept or example, where there have beene Churches with so many visible Saints, and such Mi­nisters, and these Ministers desiring and labouring to reforme as they doe, and yet that Christians have done, or should sepa­rate from them. Those Texts above mentioned, and often al­leadged, if you please to view them well againe, are very far from proving it: Corrupt members there were enough in the Jewish Church, and so in the Christian Churches soone after, and in the Apostles times; but you have no example of sepa­rating from them, but in them, say the London Ministers, we doe separate,

4. But I pray wherein doe these wicked men trouble you? I hope you will give men leave to heare the word, be they ne­ver so wicked, but many of you come not so much as to heare.

Object. But they trouble us, because they mixe with us in prayer.

Answ. No mixtures ever troubled me in Ordinances, so much as my owne heart, The Gre­cians be­fore they went to kill the sacrifice, used to cry out to the people, [...] Let us pray, Rous. Arch. Att. l. 2. c. 9 They prayed also in the Temple. c. 7. if I could separate from that I should bee happy.

But for Prayer, why would not you have them joyne in prayer? when as,

First, Prayer is a part of naturall worship, the light of na­ture dictates this to every man, if he owne a God, then pray unto him, Jonah 1.6. Call upon thy God, &c. but I hope none in your Congregations, but owne even the true God, therefore they are bound to pray to him.

Secondly, Peter when he saw Simon, Act. 8.22. in the very gall of bitternesse, yet bid him, Pray God: Then worst of men may pray.

Thirdly, Prayer God hath used to be a converting Ordi­nance; I have knowne one my selfe that now is in heaven, but was at first a notorious wretch', a mock-God, Captaine of [Page 41]Drunkards, who coming into the Church as the Minister was in prayer, God brake his heart, and followed it on so, as he be­came an eminent Saint.

Object. They mixe with us in our singing, mixed worship we cannot joyne in.

Answ. I cannot conceive what harm this can do to you; is the mixing of your owne corruption in your service lesse prejudi­ciall to the acceptance of it with God, then the presence of wicked men joyning in the service?

If indeed you can prove to me that God will not have wic­ked men sing, but if they doe, he will not accept of the service of his people, this is some ground for your exception; but I conceive you will not be able to prove the former, much lesse the latter.

That wicked men may sing, I prove thus:

First, If wicked men may pray unto God (as the light of na­ture teaches) then they may praise God; the light of nature teaches this also: nature teaches me to pray to God for what I want, and nature teaches me to praise God for what I receive. If then na­turall men may praise God with their mouths [for praise must bee expressed with tongue or pen, if you take it properly, as I said before] why not by singing? God hath given this gift to them, as well as to others. But that to praise God is a part of na­turall worship, and belongs to all men, we may conceive by the example of the Philistims, Judg. 16.23. They met to offer a great sacrifice to Dagon, and to rejoyce (because of Sampson.) Here is a day of Thanksgiving; so 1 Chron. 10.9. because Saul was slaine, &c.

If we goe to the Romans, we shall finde nature had taught them to sing to their feigned gods, Godw. Rom. Ant. l. 2. s. 2. c. 19 not to transcribe their rites in their sacrifices, After the portion layed out for the gods had beene burnt, then did all the people repaire to a common feast; where, as they were eating, they sung hymnes and songs in the praise of their gods, and playing on Cymbals, they danced about the Altars, intimating thereby, that there was no part of their body, but should be imployed in the service of their gods, &c. If nature taught the Romans to sing hymnes and songs to their feigned and foolish gods, why should wicked men be debarred from singing to the true God?

2. We finde Exod. 15.1. Moses and the sonnes of Israel, sang a song to the Lord, in v. 12. Miriam bids the women sing; I doubt not but among these sonnes and daughters of Israel, [Page 42]there were persons as corrupt as any in our Congregations: then the presence of wicked men doe not so defile you, or the Ordinance, as is supposed; to themselves indeed it was polluted, as are all other things, but this hindred not Moses, nor Miriam, they did not separate all those, who were godly, from the rest, and sing onely with them; I doubt they should have had but few songsters.

3. May a wicked man read a Psalme, or one of those songs? give me a reason why not? Will you debarre a wicked man from reading the word? If he may read a Psalme, why may not he sing the Psalme? To read the word is worship, so to sing the Psalme is worship: It is true, he cannot sing as hee should, no more he cannot read the Psalme as he should, nor heare, &c. therefore he must not read nor heare the word: To sing, is we see taught by the light of nature, as well as the other, to pray, read, or heare the word. This Ordinance is not, as the Sacraments, which we doe not see so by natures light, but have them by divine Institution revealed, having also a sealing na­ture annexed to them.

4. We finde the word calling upon all sorts of persons to praise God, Psal. 96.1. Sing unto the Lord all the earth, Psal. 68.32. Sing unto the Lord all the Kingdomes of the earth, &c. Severall such texts we finde.

I might adde more Arguments, and answer to some objecti­ons, but I content my selfe with these.

Object. But they mixe with us in the Lords Supper.

Answ. That the presence of others defile you [especially if you have done your duty to keepe that Ordinance cleare] is a thing that our Congregational men utterly deny; those who are acquainted with their workes, may see it often mentioned, therefore I quote none.

2. I wil be bold to say there are many Presbyterial Ministers, who have as few wicked men, at that Ordinance, as were in the Church of Corinth. There were more matters of exception in that Church for the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, then are in abundance of these Churches; besides, you see what course they did take to keep that Ordinance clear, and when they could not obtain what they desired of the Civil power, yet they resolved to goe further, which gave Mr. Prynne occasion to write against them.

3. I doubt if we examine things well, your selves are most to blame in that for which you separate. Suppose you be in a Congregationall Church, and have all things, as you desire; if there be any person there, who falls scandalously, that he de­serves to be suspended from the Ordinance, I pray tell me, what method will you take? I am sure the method is this, If thy Brother offend, tell him, if he heare thee not, take two, if not, tell the Church, Matth. 18. What shall the Minister alone suspend him [it may be he knows not of it] when no Witnesse comes in against him? No sure; yea, suppose a Minister saw a man drunke, one of his Members, and none saw him, or knew it but himselfe; he deales indeed with this Member, but the man denyeth it, he said he was not; the Minister is sure he was drunke but wants witnesse; the man comes to the Supper [denying the thing though the Minister had wished him privately to forbeare] shall the Minister now debarre him? No sure, the text laies a­nother method, the Minister must not be the sole Witnesse and Judge too; For if Ministers may debarre upon their own heads without Witnesse, they may soone doe strange things; now have you done thus, dealt with the Person, or two of you gone to the Minister, and told him, you know such things by such persons, which you can and will prove, such things, as if not repented of, make him unfit for the Ordinance? See Master Barro, Hos. cap. 5. v. 3. and hath the Minister yet received him [if he hath, you have discharged your duty, and no guilt lyeth on you, you may partake] I doubt there are few have done-thus, but if they be persons of quality (especially) then you pull in your hornes, afraid to appeare, but yet you will have the Minister to sus­pend him, when no Witnesse comes in (contrary to the rule) or else you separate; this blame will lye on your owne heads.

All your shift here is, we have no power to deale with men, we want an explicite Covenant.

Though I could heartily wish all our Ministers would follow the practise of the Holland Churches, who cause all, Apollon. who come to the Sacrament, to promise to subject to Discipline, yet for the present I say this, there is an implicite Covenant in all these Churches, and if you be afraid to speake to these persons first, whom you would have suspended, then goe to the Minister, and carry sufficient Witnesses [as you must doe in any Church] and [Page 44]I am confident, without satisfaction given [no more can be required in any Church] thousands of the Presbyteriall Mini­sters will keepe away scandalous persons; [at least you are cleare as I said before] yet to see these men separate for that, in which themselves are most to blame.

Obj. But they baptize all Children, making no difference though ne­ver so scandalous.

A. Though this is very seldome urged, yet because I would draw out all that can be said, I adde this.

For my owne practise, I confesse in this I differ from other men farre better then my selfe, but yet were I a Member of some other Presbyteriall Congregation, I should not dare to separate upon this ground.

1 It is granted by our Congregationall men, Mr. Hook Survey, p. 3 p. 11. that though persons be very wicked, yet so long as they live in visible Chur­ches, and are not proceeded against, they may justly challenge the priviledges of Church-Members: but I dare not deny them to be true visible Churches, in which there are many such, for there are many both reall and visible Saints in such Churches, where these wicked men are.

Obj. But then this makes against your selfe, in denying some children Baptisme.

A. Learned Mr. Caw­drey came to my hand, after I had prin­ted my lit­tle Trea­tise, had I seene him before, I should have humbly presented some answer to some things, which I see the [...]e, so farre as concerned my question [the question about Confederacy doth not concern me] also I would have pro­pounded some Reasons, why his third way i. e. Adoption, I should not so easily admit un­der the New Testament, till those Reasons were removed. I perceive he admires at them who deny the Children of Excommunicated Parents Baptisme, I have no place now to answer but only this; I say, it is not good to put too much upon Baptisme, nor too little upon that dreadfull ordinance of Excommunication. What he saith, p. 202. about the im­potence to reject prophane persons through the iniquity of the times, which implyes what he would doe, if he had power, confirmes my practise. I answer; [as I have declared in that little Tract upon this question, which the uncivill carriage of some in the Con­gregation, when I had dealt lovingly with them in private be­fore, forced me to print] I deny not them Baptisme absolute­ly, but as I suspend them from one of the Seales, so I doe from this also, till they will labour to get out of their grosse igno­rance, and scandalous conversations, and will subject them­selves to Church-Discipline; so that I doe [as say the London Ministers] separate in the Church, but not from the Church; as [Page 45]the state of our lapsed Churches will give us leave: I desire to proceed against such, yet but gently, [as for Excommunica­tion, that is a great worke] having the advantage in the Church, that many good Ministers [better then my selfe] have not, viz. That the strongest Party in the Towne is religious; but had many Presbyteriall men the same advantage, I beleeve you should see they would be more strict then now they are. Con­gregations must be mended by degrees: to purge per vices in foule bodies, is better then at first to give Hellebore, Scammony, and such strong workers; it will cost abundance of prayer, wis­dome, labour, meeknesse, to bring these Congregations fallen into this ignorance and prophanenesse for want of Catechizing, and Discipline; let the Bishops looke to their account.

Besides, divers Presbyteriall Ministers doe examine their people before they will Baptize, yea, and I have heard one who is esteemed a rigid Presbyterian say, That if the Presbyteriall Government were setled, they would Baptize none, but they would have the parents; 1. Examined in point of know­ledge. 2. If they were scandalous, that they should confesse their sinne. 3. Promise for the time to come to reforme. 4. That if persons would refuse to submit to Church-Disci­pline, they would deny them the Lords Supper.

Since then it is in the hearts of many to reforme, and it is the thing they would gladly have power to doe, I thinke it is very unwarrantable upon this ground to separate from them; besides, there are many reasons they give for Baptizing of all that doe but professe Christ, which though they are not satisfa­ctory unto me, so as to give the Seale of the Govenant to one, who saith, He beleeves in Christ, but yet is grosly ignorant, scanda­lous, &c. yet their reasons prevaile with me so, as to be very charitable to those, who doe Baptize upon those grounds; if there be any sinne in it, let the Minister looke to that, that is not your fault.

Certainly, people thinke it is a very easie thing to reforme Churches, it may be done with a wet finger; but if they were in the place of Ministers, and had what knowledge is fit for the place, they would finde it a hard Worke, especially some Churches.

So then as yet we finde no grounds warrantable for this Separation: I come to the last; The place of meeting, it is Idolatrous, and I know not what.

I thought here to have given in some answers to this absurd cavill, but the practise of this generation hath given in a full answer; for it was observed in a neighbour Towne, the Mini­ster not preaching upon a day of Thanksgiving, a Trooper got into the Pulpit, and did, &c. This was such a pretty thing, that divers of the Separatists in the Towne, who had not beene in the Steeple-house for some yeares before, ranne in haste, and be­came Auditors of the Trooper. Another of them, who called himselfe the King of England, came to me, and offered to supply my place [the man was mad, as errour had made him mad, but for all civill actions sober enough:] now from these pra­ctises I gather, that either it is no sinne to meet in a Steeple-house [as they call it] or else they have no good con­sciences, these practises are frequent, if Troopers get into Pulpits.

For the lawfulnesse of the assembling in these places, Mr. Hos. 2. ch. 15. Lect. Burroughs hath pleaded. More might be added, but I spare the Reader.

As yet then we have found no sufficient ground for sepa­ration; I shall desire yet to come nearer, and request of these persons, what it is they would have, which way may wee bee brought to an union; if what they propound bee ra­tionall, and will be borne out by Scripture, wee shall de­fire to come up to them; for I am sure in that posture wee now stand, nothing can goe forward. I have not their pro­posals before me, onely I may surmise what they would have, and accordingly I will set them downe, and examine them.

First, The Sepa­ratists first proposall. We would have Ministers lay downe their former Ordi­nation, and come joyne with us in an explicite Covenant, then wee will call them and ordaine them, and this will be one great way to union.

Very good, but are all the Separatists of this minde, doe they require no more of their Ministers? I doubt you should have put in one clause more, i.e. They must not expect any main­tenance, but preach &c. freely. What else is the reason that many of you do so cry out of Ministers, because they require mainte­nance of the people, when as the Spirit of God hath left so many expresse Texts in the Scripture for it [foreseeing this ge­neration, who runne upon expresse Texts.] What is the reason [Page 47]divers of you keepe backe your tythes (the maintenance the State for present allows) from the Ministers in the places where you live? but if you be reall, They often alleadge Act. 20.35. &c. Briefly I answer, 1. These Elders coming but lately out of heathe­nisme, could not in an or­dinary way at­taine to Ministeri­al abilities in so short a time, therefore God did in an extraordinary way help them. 2. Before they were converted, they had o­ther trades, whereby they lived in their heathenisme, so they could follow other trades, if need were, but we have not other trades. 3. Our Churches are not so poore, so there is no such need. I could adde more, but this is enough. But these ignorant men know not the weight of the work of the Ministry. that you would according to the Word, allow honourable maintenance, 1 Tim. 5.17, 18. Then I shall come to your proposall.

Answ. 1. As I made use of one of your principles before, so now I wil make use of another; you admit nothing for which you have not expresse Scripture. Hence you throw away Infant-baptisme, Sabbath, &c. Now I pray give us an expresse Text [precept or example] where we have it proved, That Ministers first chosen by the people [or had the consent of the people freely afterwards, though most of ours were elected at their first coming.] 2. Have Ordination for the substance, freely acknowledging the accidentall corruptions. 3. Men very well qualified, as any since the Apostles dayes. 4. Whom God hath used instru­mentally to convert divers, or to build up those who were converted: 5. Have administred the Ordinances for many yeares; that yet after all this, they must lay downe their Ministeriall call, joyne with you, &c.

I say, I challenge all the Separatists in England to give me one expresse Text: when you have done this, we shall bethinke our selves.

I call now for expresse Texts, for such is your owne prin­ciple; if that be a true principle, then I hope it is one for us, as well as for you. I put this once to a Separatist, who told me, this it was they required of Ministers: but the poore man could not bring one, and because he had held me to this rule of expresse Texts in another case [though I soone made him con­fesse, that necessary consequence would hold, by an instance I gave him; Suppose it had not beene recorded of Christ, that ever he ate or dranke, yet being it is recorded in Scripture, that he was true man, like to us in all things, but sinne; hence I would argue, If so, then he did eat and drinke, I beleeve that though it be not expresely written, the man yeelded] I held him to his owne principle here, but the man seeing himselfe so foiled, grew froward and angry, so I left him. To see the [Page 48]frame of these mens spirits, we may soone answer their reasons, but their wills they hold: It is no disputing against mens wills.

2. Medul. Theol. li. c. 39. sect. 32 Survey ch. disc part. 2 p. 66. Dr. Ames, Mr. Hooker, and many of our Congregationall men affirme, That the election of the people gives the essentialls to an officer, and that ordination is but an adjunct: And though there may bee some defect in the peoples election at first, yet there may be the substance of it, and that will save it, or an after consent. See the places before quoted, pag. 5. If so, then there will be few of the Ministers of England excepted, who are not true Ministers: This I am sure you freely assent to, and make Ordination a thing not worth the regarding; why then doe you keepe such a stirre at that, which you looke upon as little, when as they have that, which you say, gives the essentials to an officer; what have they the essentials of an officer, and must they go and lay downe their call? you must rather say, Let them lay downe their election, then their ordina­tion; but in saying so, you cut the throat of your owne Ob­jection; for if they have election, then they have the essentials of a Minister, and then they are Ministers, your owne selves being judges. You would make Ministers very simple men to lay downe their former Call, and you would give them a Call, which they had before, elected before, and no more now.

Obj. But what we judge is one thing, they looke upon their Ordination as chiefe, and thinke they stand by that.

Ans. What is that to you what they thinke, they have that which, your selves say, gives the essence, so that they are Mini­sters, you cannot deny it, unlesse you will crosse your owne Position; and let them thinke so, why should this trouble you? Suppose a Deacon thinkes his Ordination gives him the es­sentials of his Office, the people thinke their election doth; what then, will you separate from him, and not goe to him for reliefe in case of want? he hath Election and Ordination, so that to be sure a Deacon he is: the case is the same with our Mini­sters, Iren. p. 183 184. see Mr. Burroughs urging this instance.

To cavill here, they were indeed elected, but not by the godly Party, it is very false, first of hundreds of the Ministers, some visible Saints had their Vote, or gave after their consent; I beleeve many of you, who now separate, did joyne in the Call of the Minister, from whom you now separate, which is worse; but however this is a feeble Objection.

3 Before they renounce their Ordination, you must prove they have not so much as the substance, and essence of that Or­dinance; they will acknowledge accidentall corruptions, but still affirme they have the essence, and this none of you all have disproved.

4 In this which you require you intimate, that they are no Ministers at all, for if they be true Ministers, though there were something humane mixed in their Call, their worke must be to renounce those humane mixtures [which they doe] but if they be not true Ministers, have not so much as the essentials of the Office, then they are no Ministers at all; Consequently, wee have had no ordinances at all; if you say, Yes, I pray tell me, how may any one, who is not an Officer dispense the Seales, preach Authoritatively, &c? You practise indeed some of you as if hee might, but it is a thing abhorred of all men, both Clas­sicall, and Congregationall; God is a God of order in his House, as well as in the world: In the Civill State none must be Justices of Peace, unlesse set apart to the Office, Heb. 5.4 Ier. 14.14 every man cannot make Warrants, nor execute Justice [yet some men have as much knowledge in the Law, as many Justices have] but in the Church of God, there must be no order. Our Ministers then have been but private men, all this while they have dispensed the Ordinances: it is the Call to a Place, or Office, that makes men Officers or publick persons, but Call they have none by your esteeme.

Learned Chamier proves, To. 4. l. 5. c. 14. Survey ch. dis. part 2. pag. 42. 45 That Baptisme administred by a private person is no Sacrament at all.

Mr. Hooker speakes home to this point: he layed downe this conclusion; That there is a causall vertue put forth in a subordinate way under Christ, to bring in the specificall being of an Ecclesiasticall Of­fice to a person, &c. After three things premised he comes to a fourth, viz. Persons though gifted and fitted every way, be they never so many, they are not therefore Officers.

A call they must have, without which none can warrantably doe any act, which belongs to an Officer.

Without this, whatever is done in that behalfe is voyd, and of none effect.

The validity of an outward Call appeares in this, if it proceeds from such, who may give it by rule, because whosoever hath regularly received this Call, he is then a true Officer, though not inwardly graced, and fitted worthily to such a place, &c.

Afterwards he speakes to this purpose againe; Pag. 3. p. 9 It is a Frenzie of the Anabaptists, which begins to labour with the loathsomenesse of it selfe, that any Christian gifted, who can teach, or administer a word of instruction to win a Disciple after him, that he in a corner may Baptize him; but as Paul said of Jannes and Jambres, their madnesse is made to appeare to all, &c.

If the Lord Christ in his infinite Wisdome, and Kingly care, conceived it necessary for the honour of the place, and the execution of the worke of a Deacon, to appoint choice men, and solemne Ordination to Authorize them to the worke, &c.

The summe is, the practise is but loathsome, and the Acts of such men are voyd, who doe such things as properly belong to a Church-Officer, and are not called to the Office; thus Mr. Hooker.

Mr. Keys, p. 6 Inst. l. 4 c. 15. s. 20 In par. 2. 1. Vol. p. 766. Bell. ener. to. 3. l. 2. c. 2. Cotton he speakes against such practices, so doth the streame of all Divines, Calvin, Zanchy, Perkins, Ames, &c.

Hence then if you null their Call, you must null all the Acts they have done as Ministers, and you will be troubled (as I said before) which way to come into order; you had better therefore be quiet, and if you wil needs quarrell with their Or­dination, yet content your selves with their election, which you say is the chiefe.

Before I passe on to my last answer, let me a little examine this Thesis, viz. Election gives the essentials, and Ordination is but an Adjunct. Heretofore I have indeed been of this opinion, never much weighing the thing, being wholly carried away with the Authority of Dr. Ames, and Mr. Hooker, and others, admiring their learning and holinesse, seeing my selfe but a meere babe in comparison of these men, and so I judge of my selfe still; but I remember a passage of Mr. Hookers in his conference with forty Ministers, said he, We see things fall cut in our Churches, which puts us upon further searches; so when I observed what use is made of this Thesis in England amongst our Sectaries, and what confu­sion is brought upon us, for any number of Sectaries will elect one (be he what he will) but Election gives the essence, Or­dination is but an Adjunct, therefore may be left out; these practises have made me to search further into this opinion, this being my greatest trouble, that if I cast off the opinion, I must go crosse to such men, whom I doe so much admire and reve­rence; I am apt to thinke our holy Men did in this as our first [Page 51] Reformers did in other points; Luther let some words fall against the Law, which might have beene spared; so our Divines in their definition of saving Faith, in opposition to the Papists; so in this point the Papists cryed up ordination too high, ours now are runne on the other side, and cry up popular election as high, and cry downe Ordination, but surely a medium might have beene found out, which had come nearer to the rule (with sub­mission I speake it.)

Reverend Mr. Hooker layes downe his Thesis thus, Survey part. 2. pag. 66. Election of the people rightly ordered by the rule of Christ (I wish he had set downe this right order) gives the essentials to an officer, &c. but I doubt (with honour to this choice Saint) he hath not layed downe his Thesis so cleare, as Dr. Ames (whom he quotes after) I presume he intends the acceptation of the person elected must concurre; nay, I will affirme the acceptation is as essential, as their election, for what if this, or that, or foure Churches more chuse I will refuse them all, if I please; if election gives the essentials, then it seems I must be a Pastor to that people, who elects me, wil I, nill I; but this reverend Mr. Hooker will not owne: then I say election doth not give the essentialls. Secondly, I say my own acceptation, is as essentiall to my Call, as their election, therefore Dr. Ames layes it thus, Medul. Th. l. 1. c. 39. s. 32. Vocationis essentia est in electione Ecclesiae, & acceptatione electi; but this is not material, for our Sectaries are forward enough to accept, if any will elect.

In searching out this truth, I shall desire to set by all men, and consult with the Scriptures; I wil first search what texts we have for Election, then what for Ordination, and this I set down with my self, that if Ordination be but an Adjunct, & the election so essen­tiall, then the Texts for Election are farre more cleare, full; and those for Ordination more dark and rare; for an Adjunct, the meanest Logician knowes, is but little in comparison of an es­sentiall cause; it doth consentire, but modo quodam; 2. It suppo­seth the subject compleat in its essence before; 3. Therefore potest ab­esse; much might be spoken this way.

The Texts I finde for Election are three; neither doe I ob­serve our Divines to quote any more.

1. The first is, Act. 1.23. where we have these things obser­vable, as here are eleven Apostles in this election, but we allow those to choose, where there is no officer to guide them, and many times very weak persons.

2. It is very easie to choose one of these, for v. 21. It was one who had accompanied them from the time, &c. This was easie for the meanest to know, but to choose a man fit for a Pastor, re­quires more skill then so.

3. If we observe it narrowly, they did not so properly elect the Apostle, for when they had appointed two, Joseph and Matthias suppose one should have asked Peter, or the rest, which of these is the Apostle? he must have said he could not tell, properly God made the election: then they knew who was the Apostle, like to some Corporations in the choice of a Mayor, the floore no­minate two, but the Aldermen choose which they will have, whence the people say, The Aldermen choose the Mayor. 1. Some­thing may here be gathered for popular election, but very dif­ferent is this practise from ours; I could adde other scruples, but I forbeare.

2 The second place is Act. 6.3. a very cleare place for the popu­lar election of a Deacon, but the last words of the verse do very much shake this notion of Ordination, being but an adjunct, yea, it shakes the essentiall causality of popular election, Doe yee looke on, &c. but they adde, whom Wee may appoint over this busi­nesse. How doe the Apostles appoint them over the businesse? It is by Ordination vers. 16. Those that doe authoritatively ap­point another, or others over some businesse, they put forth a causall vertue surely in that appointing; these appointed by this Act of Ordination [the Apostles did not not meddle here with the election] then the Apostles Ordination was more then an Adjunct.

From this place Divines argue commonly, If they may choose Deacons, then much more Pastors, to whom they are more engaged, must honour, maintaine them, &c.

Thus we argue one while a majori, the people elected an Apostle, ergo, they may elect a Pastor; here now a minori, the people elect a Deacon, ergo, they may elect a Pastor, but then those Axioms one of them must bee false, a majori licet [...] solummodo, & à minori solùm [...], both which experience proves to be false, and Logicians observe it; but put the case we should question this argument; The people may elect a Deacon, ergo, their Pastor; election followeth the judge­ment, and is guided by it, but must we needs suppose the people to be as able to judge, who is fit for a Pastor, as who is fit for a [Page 53]Deacon? Dr. Ames saith, à minori ad majus, si quantitas probabi­litatis intelligatur, semper concluditur affirmatè. Is this as probable? Thes. log 143. Sure it is lesse probable, that the people should be fit to judge of the fitnesse of a Pastor, then a Deacon. I am confident there are hundreds of Congregations in England, in which there are many reall Saints, yet all the Jesuits in Rome might scatter themselves into these Congregations, and not be discerned, if the people were left alone to their owne election: Medul. l. 1. c. 39. s. 31. & Bel. ener, To. 2. l. 3. c. 2. s. 23. Hence therefore our Divines dare not trust the people alone with the election of an officer, but tells us they must have the counsell of the Presbyters, as Dr. Ames, and Mr. Cartwright upon Act. 14.23. Rhem. Test. We do not onely give unto the Bishops (Scripture Bishops) Ordination, but also we make them the chiefe, and directors in the election, saith he, where is this practised?

The third is that of Act. 14.23. [...], but certainly if we come to find out the substantives to this participle, they must be the same which were substantives to [...], and they were Paul and Barnabas: I know what is said about [...] to defend the peoples election, as the custome was ta­ken from the Grecians; Dr. To. 4. l. 5. c. 14. s. 65. Ames saith [...] apud veteres idem sepe sonant, so it appears by that passage of Basil quo­ted by Chamier to prove, that no private person may bap­tise [...], but if it it be taken in that sense here, I doe not know how it will pleasure the people, unlesse we should goe crosse to the gramaticall construction.

The summe is, Zanchy in 4 praec. Calvin in loc. Piscat. in loc. obs. 2 Malcol. in loc. Diodat. in loc. English Annot. &c expound it of the ordination of Paul & Barnabas there are no places brought for the peoples election, but those who are but shallow, will finde enough from the Texts to wrangle very hard, thouh I am for the peoples election my selfe.

The Texts brought for Ordination are these:

Act. 6.6. When they had prayed, they laid on hands on them.

Act. 13.3. When they had fasted and prayed, and laid on hands, &c. they did not separate Paul and Barnabas by Election, but Or­dination.

Heb. 6.2. The laying of bands there, is meant of Ordination, say Pareus, Dickson, Gillespie, Johnson. H. Jacob urges the Text, so that he would overthrow all the Ministry of England, because (he said), they erred in the Foundation, but he mistakes: Mr. Hooker proves Church-discipline to be a fundamentall point [Page 54]of Religion from this place thus: ‘That which is a fun­damentall point of Religion, that hath Divine Institu­tion, &c.’

‘But Church-discipline is a fundamentall point of Reli­gion, Heb. 6.’

‘Laying on of hands, being by a metonymy of the Adjunct, put for Ordination;’ Ordination, one particular, put for the whole of Church discipline. So Mr. Hooker.

1 Tim. 4.14. With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery: I know not that this Text is questioned by our Divines, Mr. Hooker, and our New England Divines from this Text conceive Imposition of hands in Ordination to be nearest the rule, as I have quoted them before.

1 Tim. 5.22. Though some would have it of the admitting of penitents, of which we have no example in Scripture, yet the common interpretation is of imposition of hands in Or­dination; this interpretation hath other Scriptures to confirme it, the other none.

1 Tit. 5. Ordaine Elders in every City. I doe not finde that our Divines oppose this place neither. What Sectaries carp at, I weigh not.

Rom. Miscel. p. 37. 10.15. How shall they preach, except they be sent? Mr. Gil­lespy hath, I thinke, sufficiently cleared this Text. To be sure, he is not alone in his interpretation. He likewise clears Ordina­tion from that, Heb. 5.4. and first verses.

Now since the Scripture is more copious, and plaine in giving us examples, and presidents of ordination of Ministers, then of the peoples election of Ministers (though I grant something may well be drawne out of those Texts for election against the Papists, besides the ancient course of the Church) I cannot see any reason (if Scripture be our guide) why we should cloath these Texts for Ordination with this logicall affection of an Adjunct, and the other with the affection of a formall cause: I should put most upon that, where the Scripture is plainest and fullest, which I am sure in any mans esteeme, that observes those Texts with an impartiall eye, is ordination.

Whether Ordination according to Scripture-light be not as es­sentiall to a Minister as Election, Vind. chu. Cath. vis. let any one judge. I thinke Mr. Hudson speakes Christianly, I preferre one Divine Testimony, before ten arguments, and one good argument, before ten humane Testi­monies. [Page 45]But thus by cloathing these Scriptures with these logicall affections, we have cried up election, and cryed downe Ordination, sectaries take advantage of this, and hence come in our disorders. Ordination is a Divine institution.

Ars est in rebus, and Logicke is a generall Art, so that we must give some logical terms to Election and Ordination: I deny not this, onely it is good to bring Art to Scripture, and not carry Scripture to Art: If you aske, what logicall Arguments are there betweene a Ministers call, and Election and Ordination? I said be­fore these two con­stitute the form of a Minister, mutatâ af­fectione, mutatur argumen­tum. Survey par. 2. pag. 68. in 4 praec. what if I should answer, The Call is Totum integrale, Election and Ordination are membra constituting this Totum; Thus I make Election to be essentiall, and so I speake the highest of Election, though I must professe upon serious thought, I rather question whether Election be essentiall, then I doe Ordination. Reverend Mr. Hooker indeed saith, Ordination is but the approba­tion of a person constituted in his office; but I am apt to thinke, Ordination doth most respect that inward, or Arcanam vocatio­nem (as Zanchy calls it) which God gives a man into the Mini­stry, fitting and qualifying of a man first for the worke (which none else can do) and giving him an earnest desire to the worke, God did there as it were, separate him inwardly, and now he doth it outwardly in Ordination. The particular Congrega­tion doth but give him a Call by their election and subjection to him, to exercise this power among them pro hic & nunc; That which moves me to thinke so is,

First, Churches may not choose whom they list (as doe our Sectaries) but persons qualified by God.

Secondly, the Scripture is so full and cleare for Ordination over it is for Election, though I deny not but Election may well bee proved.

Thirdly, because a man may in some cases be ordained to the Ministry, when no election of the people doth precede, as I shall give instance afterward.

2. I argue thus:

If the election of the people doth give the essentials to an officer, then may a man elected execute all officiall power with­out ordination, and that commonly.

But no man may execute officiall power, and that com­monly without ordination; ergo, election doth not give the essentialls; by the essentials here, he meanes the formall cause, [Page 56]for as for the materiall cause, they cannot give that, and we have but two causes that doe dare essentiam, though all foure doe dare esse.

The consequence is cleare, that they may execute, &c. with­out ordination, for forma dat operari; but election gives the forme, say these Reverend men, and ordination is but an Ad­junct, effects doe not depend upon Adjuncts, for operation the forme gives that.

The minor, that they must not doe so.

First, it is crosse to Scripture presidents; if it were but a Deacon, Survey part. 3. pag. 9. saith Mr. Hooker, yet, we see, he was ordained.

Secondly, It is crosse to your owne practise; it is frequent in New England to have a man elected, and preach halfe a yeare, a whole yeare, yea, I know one elected and preached two yeares to his people, and they maintained him all that while, and yet all that time he never administred a Sacrament to his people, but he and they, when they would partake of the Lords Supper, went ten miles to the Church, out of which they issued, to re­ceive the Sacrament; but this was very hard and needlesse, if he had the forme given him in election.

2. That which doth nextly invest a man with official power, so as now he may performe officiall acts, and before which he could not doe so, that doth give essence, and consequently is not a meer adjunct.

But Ordination doth nextly invest a Minister with official power, so as now he may perfome official acts, which before he could not doe; ergo,

The minor is clear by the Scripture examples.

Secondly, it is clear by your owne practise, for those who for two yeares, and more, stood onely by election, but that while dispensed no Sacraments, when they were ordained, did pre­sently put forth all official acts.

The major, take all together, I suppose will not be denied; it doth nextly invest a man with official power, so as now he can performe official acts, and before he could not doe it; to say he had official power before given him by election, but could not act it, is strange, frustra est illa potentia, &c. had such a person continued twice as long unordained, he had not exe­cuted any official power, nay, his preaching all that time was not esteemed preaching by way of office.

Neither can it be said such preach onely upon triall, for I now speake of such, as had beene tried before, nay, have beene preachers in England long before they went over, and such I am sure, as the people would willingly had them ordained within one month after they had chosen them, they were so well satis­fied in the persons, whom they had chosen.

Fourthly, it is something that solemnity the Scripture ex­presseth, that was in the ordination of Ministers, prayer and fasting, and imposition of hands: we read of no such solemnity in e­lection, though people ought to pray before they doe choose. So it was in New England, this act was very solemne; when no­tice was given of the ordination of an officer to the severall Churches (as before any ordination, all the Churches adjacent had notice given) it ran in that forme, There is an Ordination to be this weeke at such a Church, &c. for the election of the person, we knew it long before, whom they had chosen, and though the people did by their suffrage declare their election in this day of Humiliation, yet they declared no more then the Coun­try knew before; and I hope you will not say, he was not elected before now, when first they chose him to goe with them, or come to them, and there continued a yeare or two preaching, & they contributing to his maintenance; the same I might say in regard of myself, I had as ful an election of my people at my first coming, as was declared at my ordination, and it was above two years, before I could get my ordination in the place where I was elected (through the troubles of the times) but all that while I did not conceive my selfe invested with official power, till I was also ordained. The Scripture then expressing such so­lemnity in this act, and not in the other, makes me thinke, this is not such a slight Adjunct, and the other onely essen­tiall.

Fifthly, I observe two Texts, which make me think ordination is not an Adjunct, 2 Tim. 2. And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men, who should be able to teach others also. And that Text, 1 Tim. 5.22. Lay hands suddenly upon no man, neither be partakers of other mens sins &c. Timothy is a Church-officer, here is a charge given to him to take heed, who comes into the Ministry, yea, he may be par­taker of other mens sinnes, if he have not a speciall care, whom he admitteth into the Ministry, Nam si quem cito ordinaveris, qui [Page 58]indignus sit, Communi­care cum dicit pec­catis qui non proba­tus fuerit ordinatus. Hieron in Loc. v. Zanch. in 4 praec. p. 784. &c. communicabis peccatis alienis, dum ille malè docebit, aut vivet, saith Gerhard in Loc. He quotes also Leo Papa, Ep. 87. Ad Africanos Episc. Quid est citò manus imponere, nisi ante aetatem matu­ritatis, antè tempus examinis, ante meritum laboris, antè experien­tiam Disciplinae, sacerdotalem honorem tribuere non probatis? Calvin also on the last words, Keep thy selfe pure; Ac si dixisset, si quid perperam fiat ab aliis, vide ne ulla ex consensu, vel approbatione contagio ad te perveniat. He referres it to Timothy, joyning with others in ordaining unworthy persons; now these texts doe not belong to the people, but Ministers, Officers, as was Timothy, which makes me thinke, that what the Ministers doe in examining, try­ing, ordaining, is more then the peoples election; where doe we finde such things spoken to the people? Where the greatest blame lyes, for unworthy men coming into the Ministry, surely there must lye the greatest power of admitting men into the Ministry, else the blame is not just; but we see the blame is here layed upon the Mini­sters; ☞ Paul no where writes to the people to commit the things they have heard, &c. nor doth he bid them not lay on hands suddenly, &c. he bad them indeed looke out men for Deacons, but that doth not answer these texts; but if the great stroke, the formall cause lye in the popular election, the Ministers may well say, We doe but ordaine, we give but an Adjunct, the people did the maine Act, they gave the essence, the essence being given, we must give the Adjunct, so that there will be no blame left for the Ministers.

6 It should seeme by a passage of Doct. Bellar. E­ner. To. 2 l, 3. c. 2. S. 12. Ames, that ordination is more then an Adjunct; Bellarmine had said, Vocatio seu missio ministrorum non ad populum pertinet, sed ad Episcopos, &c. Doct. Ames in his second answer hath these words; Absurdè ad modum di­stinguitur vocatio ministri, ab ejus Ordinatione & electione, tanquam pars distincta; neque in Scripturis, neque in antiquis Patribus alia voca­tio ordinaria memoratur, quam illa, quae exurgit, quasi Totum, ex electio­ne & ordinatione: what Totum the Doctor meanes, is plaine by his words, Exurgit ex ordinatione & electione, he meanes Totum integrale; so then ordination and election are members of this Integrum, but all the members doe give essence to the Integrum, for Membra sunt symbola causarum essentialium. If so, then ordina­tion cannot be an Adjunct in respect of a Ministeriall Call, for no Adjunct gives essence, but followes the essence, supposing the subject compleat in its essence before; if then ordination doth give essence, as well as election, this notion may hold, else we [Page 59]should have an Integrum consisting but of two parts, and but one part give the essence, which cannot be. This notion of a Ministers Call to consist as a Totum ex electione & ordinatione, is much nearer the Rule, then to have election alone to give the essence, and ordination to be but an Adjunct.

To this agrees Mr. Jacob [a man well known] There are two essentiall parts of calling to the Ministry, Election, Ordination: Dr. Sea­man quotes him, Ans. to Diat, p. 64 so the Calling is a Totum. As for the Objections made against this, if ordination be essentiall, what then shall become of our Mini­sters, whose ordination is not legitimate? This I have spoken to before; and so, what will you doe in case a Church were so cast by providence, that they could get no Officers to Ordaine them an Officer? [for those who are of this opinion deny the People power to ordaine] it is easily yeelded by our Divines, that may be done in an extraordinary case, which ordinarily ought not to be done. See Rutherford, Due right of Presbytery, p. 187. Gillespie, Miscel. p. 34. &c. for my part, I conceive then the Church fasting, and praying, for such a one, who is elected, may doe that which is aequivalent to ordination, though it be not ordination formalitèr.

The strong argument where-with reverend Master Hooker proves, That Election gives the Essentials to an Officer is this:

The answer which Mr. Rutherford gives to it, viz. That ordina­tion made him a Minister before, and election doth but appropriate him; This Mr. Hooker denyeth to be any answer, because it suppo­seth ordination to antecede election, which is quite crosse to the Scripture pattern, Act. 6.3.6. But (with favour) I should humbly propound this question, This is not a bare sup­position, for one of the young Schollars doth now preach to the Indi­ans in their language. Whether Ordination may in no case precede election? As now in this case, Suppose one of the Schollars in the Colledge, or suppose foure, or more had learned the Indian Language, and upon examination they were found to be Ministerially qualified; suppose now the Presby­tery should solemnly set apart these young men to the worke of the Ministry, and send them forth to preach among the Indi­ans, though the Indians have not elected them; here indeed would the essentials of an Officer be given without election: I pray what breach of rule would here be? If it be said, that the [Page 60]examples mentioned, Act. 6. & Act. 14. shew their election goes first; It is true indeed where there are Churches, but here are none. Besides, Act. 13.3. when Paul and Barnabas were sent out to preach among the Gentiles they were ordained, Though some deny ordination here to be meant, yet many lear­ned men affirme it. when no election did precede; it is true, they were extraordinary Officers, but what then? though this doth not make those young men extraordinary Officers, as were the Apostles, to have power in all Churches, yet I see not any breach of rule in sepa­rating them to this work. If it be said, what need of that Or­dination, they may preach without? It is true, they may, but it is not so comfortable, as when men are set apart by a Divine institution, there is an authority more conferred; they may now baptize as they finde successe of their Ministry (which was the old way) and shal not need be put to those troubles, which now they are; Suppose laborious Mr. Eliot were not ordained, who should baptize the Indians, called home to Christ by him? The first preachers, that came into Eng­land were ordained, before e­lected here. as suppose they should convert divers Indians forty or fifty miles from any Plantation, how shall these be baptised? what, shall they now elect, and ordaine these men? shall unbaptised persons ordaine an Officer? where have we a rule for that? then it seemes all these must come to another Church, &c. forty or fifty miles distant, to a Church also whose language they understand not, and there be baptised by a Minister, whom they understand not, nor he them. Here are many odde things fall in, crosse to all Scripture presidents, but to have these ordained and sent forth, is not crosse to the Scripture presidents; but if this be granted, then Ordination without election may give the essentials to an Officer.

But further, here you say election gives the essentials, I be­seech you, what shall we doe then with all those Scriptures, where ordination is held out so fully? shall we omit them if they containe but an Adjunct? No, I am sure this gracious Saint would not doe so, his heart was so awed with high thoughts of God, and his Word, that he dared not omit such a Divine institution, as those Scriptures hold out; are then those six or seven Scriptures alledged for ordination, as neces­sary to a Ministers Call, as those three which are brought for election? if not, I pray give a reason, why some Scriptures should be lesse set by, then others in this nature; Divine Autho­rity we acknowledge in both: but this was far from this reverend mans thoughts, for we see him prove Church-Discipline to be a fundamentall point of Religion, from imposition of hands; then if these [Page 61]Scriptures be equally as necessary to the constitution of a Mi­nister, that none must dare to omit them, we doe but [...] in saying, that ordination is but an Adjunct, &c. In constitu­ted Churches, those, who omit ordination, goe crosse to those many texts of Scripture, they follow not the patterne, Some I know make little of election, but I would give it the most and so sin against the second Commandement, as do they, who go crosse to the texts for election; and if election in an extraordinary case may serve without a formall ordination, in the like case may ordination be without election, and so we are even.

Further, in answer to the Argument, they are Relates; sup­pose I should say, The election of the people gives a part of the essence to the Officer [for so we considered the Call of a Mini­ster to be a Totum arising out of election and ordination, as Doctor Ames] it may be you will say, Relata, quà sic, doe not give a part of the essence, but the whole: here then will be our trouble, whether we must bring Scripture to Logick, or carry our Logick to Scripture; why then doe not Ministers act offi­cially upon bare election, as I said before? But it is answered, their election gives the essence, as he is their Minister, but ordi­nation gives the essence, as he is a Minister; Mr. Hudson hath spo­ken closly to this. Vind. Chur. Ca­thol. vis [...] p. 138. ad. 151. for ordination doth invest a Minister with power to act beyond those, who have called him, giving him an habituall power in actu primo to exercise and performe the Acts belonging to his Office else­where upon a Call. I know indeed our New England Divines, many (I say not all) as wel as reverend Mr. Hooker, are of another opinion, That a man is an Officer only to his own particular Congregation, Relatorum mutuum est iter; but suppose I should say, A Minister bears an habitual relation to the whole Church-Catholick vi­sible, which some of our Divines doe now (I thinke) strongly prove; for my part I could never swallow that notion, that a Pastor preaches only, as a Pastor, to those who elected him, and to other Churches, as a gifted Brother. I dare boldly affirme in the Apostles times, and the purest Ages next them, this notion was never heard. As for this notion of a Catholick visible Church, I have not so much busied my head about it till of late, & in my weak judgement I think, there is so much said for it by Mr. Hudson (especially) and others, that I suppose it will not easily be an­swered; that which made me leane to this opinion, was;

First; the light which his Scriptures and Arguments bring along with them.

2 I did not see by this notion, that the people were at all [Page 62]defrauded of what is properly theirs, they may elect officers, they may have power to bring in testimony, to exclude unwor­thy communicants, yea, or may object against any, who should be admitted Church-members (if Churches were in their first constituting) if they knew good reason why they should not be admitted; neither are they debarred from consenting with their officers in excommunication; I say, I doe not see but these priviledges may consist with this notion.

3. Mr. Huds. vind. 160. 161. Let parti­cular chur­ches walk as they should re­gularly and they have as much li­berty as they can desire; if they walk irregularly See Mr. Cottons Keyes 53.54. the second Impressi­on. I saw this notion did not crosse that Position, which I have held out, viz. That a particular Church organized, and walking regularly, may execute all the power of the Keyes within it self. I see not how a particular Church in this case is at all hindred, for such a Church to walke irregularly, and to claime exemption from all other Church-power, let those, that will, be members of such Churches, I desire not to be so, but in such Chur­ches, where there may bee meanes to helpe a wicked heart.

4. In this notion I saw a way how Congregations, that have no Ministers may have Ministers ordained successively by offi­cers (which I am sure was the old way) yea, and officers may be judged per pares and excommunicated; I saw it would bring in much order into Churches.

5. The practises I observed in New England that did imply such a notion as this, did lead me much to it.

1. As that members of one Church did so frequently par­take of the Sacraments, both the Lords Supper, and Baptisme in other Churches; one Pastor it may be might administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, to the members of five or six Churches at one time; I know it is often said that a Mayor of one Corporation, may administer justice to the members of another Cor­poration, if they be under his jurisdiction, but he must not goe to them, but similia ad pompam, non ad pugnam. The Analogie betweene a Commonwealth, and the Church will not hold, as I may touch afterward; but this I am sure, according to that practise, that seven make a Church, they may admit five or six whole Chur­ches, and a Pastor chosen by none of them may administer the Sacrament to them all at one time; but doe we finde whole Corporations goe to the Mayor of another Corporation for Justice? Mr. Philips Pastor of the Church in Water-town, while Mr. Wilson Pastor of the Church of Boston was here in England, went to Boston, and administred the Lords Supper to that Church [Page 63](I was not then in the Country, but I heard of it soone after, when I went over with Mr. Wilson) I know no sin in that act. I thought to have given some Instances, how frequent this was in the Primitive Churches, Vind. Cath. à 192 ad 196 for one Minister to act officially be­yond the people, who elected him: But Mr. Hudson (a man far more able) hath set down those examples, which I would have given, and many more, to whom I referre the Reader; Yea, it was or­dinary for the members of one Church to dwell one or two yeares; nay, six, or seven yeares in another Towne, and to par­take of the Sacraments there as frequently, as any of the mem­bers of that Church: Indeed of late the Elders have not liked this, to have them live so remote from the inspection of their owne officers, and therefore have required such to joyne with the Church, where they dwell, this is good and orderly: The letters also of Recommendation, which the Churches make for the members, when they come over hither, requiring of the Churches here what communion, counsell, or comfort they shall need, promising the performance of the like debt to others, &c.

2. Also I saw, if a man were excommunicated out of one Church, he stood excommunicated out of them all, but if a man be disfranchised in one Corporation, another Corpora­tion may receive him, and give him his freedome, if they please, this shews there is something more in a Church, then in a Com­monwealth.

3. I saw they preached frequently in other Churches, but that it should be onely, as gifted brethren, this is so harsh to conceive: I pray what act doth the mayor of one Corporation do in another Corporation like this, that carries authority in it? and that here we must distinguish of the Mayor, if he did this at home, he did it as a Mayor authoritatively, but in this Corporation he doth it as a private man?

Further, they are Ministers or Pastors onely to those, who elect, and the fraternity only elect (where there is no officer) but there are divers in the severall Townes, who are not joyned to the Churches, so they did not elect, then it seemes they preach as pastors, onely to those, who elected; but to the rest of the Towne, as gifted men; consequently, when God blesses their labours to the conversion of any of those, they convert them (instrumentally) not as Ministers of Christ, ordained, sepa­rated [Page 64]to that worke, but onely as gifted men; yea, they never convert any, as Ministers, unlesse some of those, who elected them be close hypocrites, and so they convert them; but ordi­narily those, who choose, are reputed godly already, and they are Ministers only to them. Hence rises that vile notion, that some here have taken up, That Pastors should preach onely to the edification of the Saints, not to others.

4. I have heard since I came away, that when people have chosen an Officer, and had no Officers to ordaine him, that the Ministers of other Congregations have done it, and the Con­fession of Church-discipline by the Synod of New England, as also Mr. Hooker, Survey part. 2. pag. 59. allow as much.

5. If one Congregation should prove pertinaciously scan­dalous, and hereticall, then though they doe not formally ex­communicate such a Congregation, yet all the Churches in the Country would proceed to the Non-communion of such a Church; and for all the Churches to expresse so much to such a Church, We do all renounce communion with you, &c. this amounts to a censure, and is equivalent to excommunication, contain­ing in it all the effects, that appear in excommunication, and so I should reckon my selfe as much excommunicated.

Mr. Burroughs saith, They may by a solemne act in the name of Christ, Iren. 43. refuse any communion with them, till they repent. They may de­clare in the name of Christ, that these erring Churches are not to be recei­ved into fellowship with any Churches of Christ, nor to have communion one with another in the Ordinances of Christ; all this solemnly in Christs name: Onely some (may be) will say, if this be an Ordinance of Christ, bring out the texts to prove this, and then we shall see, if those texts wil not beare it out, that the Churches united thus in this censure, have not some authority over that parti­cular Church. If you goe to the old politie, the Synedrion had power over particular Congregations; if to light of na­ture, that will carry it; so that we must have texts to decide this Question. For my part I must leave this to better heads.

Laying all together, the Churches seeme to pactise, as if there were such a Church.

Some things there are, which a little trouble me in this no­tion, that make me not come off so roundly in receiving it; I question not the Church-catholicke-visible, but I meane that [Page 65]it is one organicall body, but as he said Veritas est temporis filia, so I beleeve Time will cleave out this, but so much I see, as commands me to lean to that side.

I was thinking how dangerous this might prove; If the major part of the Catholick-visible-church should decline, grow superstitious &c. other Churches yet remaining pure, if they did not subject to the major part, what then? but I saw incon­veniences also on the other side, if a Congregation be so entire, that they can elect, ordaine, and are exempted from all power, then Arians, Photinians, and all manner of Hereticks may elect, ordaine, &c. who shall deny them? and besides, suppose the major part of Congregationall Churches should decline, they would proceed to Non-communion of other particular Churches more pure, and this is in a manner all one.

Further, If so, then if a Minister be removed from one Con­gregation to another, or if his people should dye, he now is but a private person, and may nor baptise, &c.

Hence also he must have another ordination when elected, and as oft as he is elected; I have not heard any there, but here al­leadge it. I confesse I am not cleare in the pra­ctise; I have searched to finde what Scripturall grounds there were for it, but I find none that these Reverend Elders expresse; some have alleadged in conference, that Act. 13.3. Paul and Barnabas were ordained before, and now they are ordained againe: but I finde Mr. Hooker saying, To. 4. l. 4. c. 24. s. 25. here was no ordination to office at all. Survey part. 2. pag. 83. then I perceive this will not warrant it; I finde learned Chamier also of that opinion, he saith, So our English Annotati­ons, and Calv. in Loc. there was not properly any ordination into a new Eccle­siasticall office, but confirmatio missionis ad Gentes, ad quas non­dum erant ex professò missi. The Author of the Diatribe, saith they were Ministers before, Act. 12. ult. but I doubt that place will not prove it, for their fulfilling of their Ministry or Charge there, may refer to C. 11.29, 30. the carrying of the relief to the Saints at Jerusalem, which they might do, though no Apostles.

Here then we are in the dark what to judge of the text, if we rest onely upon mens opinions, there are many, who are for the contrary opinion, that here was ordination, as I have named before, and I thinke those, whom Chamier quotes in the twen­tieth Section of the former Chapter, conceive so, saith he, Act. 13. Imponuntur manus Paulo, & Barnabae mittendis ad Evangelii praedicationem in Gentes, quid hoc est? Chrysostomus, Theophylactus [Page 66]Oecumenius, [...], ad Apostolatum. Me thinkes when I see here are the same acts done, which are done at another Ordi­nation, and there was no Ordination before, nor after, where any more acts were done, why this should not be understood for Ordination, I know not: A man to be separated to the work whereunto God called him (the worke of the Ministry) there­fore to have prayer, fasting, and imposition of hands, this was done at other Ordinations, when others were separated, though not to be Apostles, as these were. I dare not say that these were not Apostles before now, because I see so many Divines are of that opinion; for Barnabas we finde him made mention of, Act. 4.36. a Levite, and a man of excellent gifts, no doubt, as it appeares in Chap. 11. but to say he was an Apostle before, I doe not see it made so cleare, Act. 13.1. There were Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas, so that Barnabas was one of them, but as yet not an Apostle, for we know these are distinguished, Apostles, Pro­phets, &c. though I dare not gain-say it, but impute it rather to my ignorance; for Paul, there seemeth to bee more said for him, Act. 9 for those that say Ananias his imposition of hands upon Paul, was to separate him to the worke of his Apostleship (for that was one end of Imposition of hands) I dare not oppose Divines in this, Pareus upon Gal. 1.1. when Paul saith he was an Apostle not by man, thinks he points to this Act. 9. but so he was not, though here he were first called to that office for his call was im­mediate, as Chamier notes. To. 4. l. 4. c. 24 the 12. vers. saith, He saw one in a vision, putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight, and Ananias saith, vers. 17. The Lord hath sent me, that thou mightest re­ceive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. Now if that neces­sarily implyes that ergo now he was ordained to his Apostleship, I will not oppose, though it is possible that might be, though he were not yet an Apostle; and this is somewhat different from others, that first Ananias alone, secondly in a private house, (the question is who were with Paul in the house) 3. before he was baptised, should be ordained thus to be an Apostle, though I cannot oppose much, for if Christ will have it, it is orderly enough; but if they were men extraordinarily qualified, and not set apart to the office of their Apostleship, then this place of Act. 13.3. may be interpreted of their ordination to the office of their Apostleship. But suppose they were Apostles, yet wil this text be sufficient proofe to maintaine, that Ministers must bee newly ordained, if they remove from one particular Congregation to another? I am sure there may bee sufficient grounds, given, why they may remove; if indeed the case were now, as then it [Page 67]was with the Gentiles [ Act. 11.19. The scattered Disciples preached to the Jews onely, but the G entiles had none sent among them before in this manner, as those were sent (though Peter had beene with Cornelius) to be Apostles of the Gentiles) we might allow a second Ordination: In Antiquity we do not finde a second Ordination made mention of; something we finde to the contrary, as in that Tract of Cyprian, which though it may be proved not to be Cyprians owne, yet no doubt the Au­thour may be as ancient as Cyprian, written in his time, as Pamelius observes, neither doth Goulartius oppose him in it; De Ablu­tione pedum Nemo sacros ordines semel datos iterum renovat, &c.

In the 67. Can. Apost. thus, Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus, secundam ab aliquo ordinationem susceperit, deponiter tàm ipse, quam qui ipsum ordinavit, nisi forte constet ordinationem eum babere ab haereticis, &c.

Augustine speaking of Baptisme and Ordination saith, Contra permian l. 2. c. 13. Ʋ ­trumque enim Sacramentum est, & quadam consecratione utrumque ho­mini datur, illud cum baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur; ideoque in Catho­licâ utrumque non licet iterari. To the same purpose he speakes in his booke, de bono conjugali, contra Jovin. c. 24.

From which places I gather it was not their manner to ite­rate Ordination; indeed Scripture and strong Argument, is more then humane Testimony; but that is not sufficient to say, Ordination is but the approbation of a person constituted in his office, unlesse it could be proved that Ordination is no more, which will easily be denyed.

For our Moderne Divines, I do not know any that maintaine this iteration of Ordination, in case a man remove from the place where he was first ordained.

The second Argument which Reverend Mr. Hooker useth to prove that Election gives the essentials, &c. is this:

It is lawfull for the people to reject a Pastor upon just causes, and put him out of his office, ergo, it is in their power to Call him outwardly, and put him into his office. By this Rejection, he means Excommunica­tion, for so he saith afterward, This rejection cuts him off from being a member, &c. So consequently it must needs make him cease from being an officer.

For that phrase of putting him into his office, if it be taken se­cundum quid, and as to their officer, it hath not beene opposed, [Page 68]but if taken absolutely, that their election makes him a Minister, (as Mr. Hooker doth) that is it which is denied.

As for the Antecedent, whether people have power to reject, (or if you meane Excommunication, as it seemes that is meant) that is another question; If there be officers, and the people consent with them to cast out an officer, pertinaciously scanda­lous and hereticall, none doubt of that; but for the people, being but a homogeneall body, to reject, i.e. excommunicate an ossicer, will cost more to prove; had Reverend Mr. Hooker beene alive, and saw what work Church-members make here in England in very many Churches, I thinke it would have caused him to bethinke himselfe againe of the peoples power. Something we heare of, is done in a Church not farre from the place where he lived, it cannot be kept close; the light of that fire shines into England. For the people to withdraw their subjection from such an officer, when there are no other officers to joyne with them to excommunicate him, this is not denied, for by their sub­jection to him, they made him their officer (that was some part) so they may withdraw their subjection againe.

But for Excommunication, Mr. Cotton saith, It is one of the highest acts of rule in the Church, Keys p. 16 and therefore cannot be performed but by some Rulers.

Mr. Burroughs saith, Iren. 51. If the Church be without officers, they cannot doe that which belongs to officers to doe, they have no Sacraments amongst them, neither can they have any spirituall jurisdiction exercised amongst them, onely brotherly admonition, and withdrawing from such as walke disorderly, for their owne preservation.

So then here is a way for the people to preserve themselves though they cannot excommunicate, and those Texts which Reverend Mr. Hooker brings, Matth. 7.15. and Phil. 3.2. doe not prove the Church, as a homogencal body, to have power to ex­communicate their officers, though they may prove with­drawing, as also Rom. 16.17. may prove it.

For the reason of his consequence, that staple rule, ejusdem est Instituere, destituere, this maxime is turned every way, some­times to prove the people may excommunicate their officers, be­cause they doe Instituere.

The people in Election put forth no act of jurisdiction, therefore they may put forth the highest act of jurisdiction, in excom­munication; that there is no act of jurisdiction in election, [Page 69]Doctor Ames acknowledgeth; Ovas rationales possunt eligere sibi Pastorem, sicut sponsa eligit sibisponsum, non per jurisdictionem aut Gu­bernationem sed potius per subjectionem. In the answer before he af­firmes the same, and else-where: now what arguing is this, Bellar. e­ner. to. 2 l. 3. c. 2. S. 19. Ib. S. 13. to argue from subjection, to the highest Act of Jurisdiction? there was no Authority in election, for electio non cogit [yet there is more power seene in Civill elections, then Church-elections, as I shall touch afterward] but in Excommunication, Authority appeares. That also is denied, that the people doe instituere in constituted Chruches, and ordinarily what may be done in an extraordinary case is no ordinary rule.

Here the maxime is turned, to prove that they may Jnstituere, because they can destituere, but that will be denyed, unlesse it be in the sence before mentioned, i. e. in what manner, and how farre they did instituere, i.e. by a subjection to be their Officer, so they may with-draw their subjection from him, and not owne him to be their Officer; but to Excommunicate is more.

Quest. ‘ But suppose this be granted, that the Fraternity cannot ex­communicate ;their Officer, but with-draw their subjection they may, you say, and so he ceases to be their Officer; but what, is he now an Officer to other Churches?’

A. If the with-drawing their subjection, and rejecting be ir­regular, then though they make him not their Officer de facto, [which he is still de jure] yet his relation to the Church-Ca­tholick visible doth still hold, and another Church giving him a Call, he hath then power actu secund [...] to administer the Or­dinances there.

For instance, the separatists cast off him, whom before they chose for their Officer, supposing now, unlesse he will re­nounce his ordination he is no Minister, doth he therefore cease to be a Minister? how bufie some Congregationall Chur­ches are in with-drawing from their Officers, it is too mani­fest, and many goe to the Anabaptists, some turne Seekers, and-if all the Members doe thus, doe they now cease to be Mi­nisters?

2 But if the with-drawing be regular, the cause just, tried, &c. then that which is sufficient ground for their with-draw­ing from him, is just cause, why he should be excommunicated, being pertinaciously scandalous, or Hereticall, as Mr. Hooker [Page 70]supposeth. If then the case of a Church be so, as they are cast by providence into some remote place, where are no Churches besides to combine with, then as their election of him, &c. [as I said before] may supply the want of ordination; so this with-drawing in such an extraordinary case may be Analogum to excommunication; but (say our Divines) if that Church be in combination with other Churches, as now under a Classis, then the people shall not need to stay there, in their with-draw­ing, but the case being judged and tryed by the Classis, they as they ordained him, when the people elected him [the people consenting] doe excommunicate him; then as a man cast out of one Church, is cast out from the Catholick Church visible; so he who is cast out from being an Officer to this Church, is cast out from being a Minister to the Church-Catholicke vi­sible.

For the other Argument, Burro. I­ren. p. 50 Nort. resp. ad Apoll. p. 76, 78 the people conveying of power to an Of­ficer; I know of no power the people conveyes, only a desig­nation of such a person to officiate in this or that Society; but their power they receive from Christ immediatly (as our Con­gregationall men affirme) and hence they act in his Name, not in the name of the Church.

5 The last answer I would give to this Proposall is this; if you conceive this to be the only way of Reformation, then you must give the Ministers strong proofe that you may ordaine; the Ministers will as much question your power to ordaine, as you question the Bishops power; so that we take it for granted you are able to prove this, because you are so punctuall, you say, for reforming by the word. But of this practise I much doubt.

1 My ground is, because I finde not one Iota of any such thing in the New Testament.

Obj. Though you doe not in the New Testament, yet in the Old Testa­ment there is, Numb. 8.10.

A. That place is the only resuge, but

1 It is commonly answered, That it is no faire arguing to goe to the Old Testament for one thing we would have, and when another comes to the same Politie for an argument for their turne, now to debarre them, and tell them this is the old Politie; either leave out the Jewish Politie altogether, or else give others leave to fetch Arguments from thence, as well as your selves.

2 If you will goe to that Politie, why may I not as well prove, That the Civill Magistrate may ordaine, as well as Moses did Aaron, Levit. 8.?

3 But in that Church at that time there were Officers, Aa­ron and his sonnes, thence (if that be a rule) it must follow, that though there be Officers in a Church, yet the people may ordaine, which I am sure those Divines, who are for the peoples power in ordination, will never admit, being crosse to their owne Principles, and Scripture.

4 We finde in the eleventh verse, that after that was done, Aaron did wave these Levites before the Lord, so that they were not compleat till Aaron had done his Act; whence I remember learned Master Cotton (in his discourse with me) said, the peo­ples [...] there, did but answer to the peoples [...] in the New Testament, and Aarons waving of them did answer to our [...]: this clause only I remember, but he had a larger answer, which I tooke from him in discourse, by which, I re­member, he did enervate this Objection, but I lost his notes, with all my other helps, in my shipwrack.

These men call for precept and example, give you us one for this in the New Testament, for you put us to that also, we must give you them out of the New Testament; yea, Iwould goe further, and desire them to give me one examplein the first six hundred yeares after Christ, that ever the people did ordaine their Minister; now this is strange to me, that we can finde no foot-step of any such thing in the Scripture, nor in the Ages next, and yet that we should make it so frequent, that they must ordaine most frequently; for if every particular Church be Independent (as now such a Church where I am in a small Village, where the maintenance will not keep one Mi­nister, and therefore to be sure we cannot have more Ministers) then if the Minister remove, or dye, if there come a new Mini­ster, the people must ever ordaine, thus it must be in most places in England, few will be excepted; Iustin. Mart. A­pol. 2 and if every new election must have a new ordination, then it must alwayes be in the peoples power; In the Primitive times, there were Churches in Cities, and Villages, but that the Christians in Villages did ordaine their Officers, I would gladly see that proved.

Ordination in those times was carried by a continued succes­sion, the Apostles ordained some Ministers, those ordained o­thers, [Page 72]so downwards, but never by the people.

Learned Dr. [...]ell. ener. to. 2. l. 3. c. 2. s. 6 Ames seemes to answer this; for whereas Bel­larmine had said, In novo Testamento ubicun (que) mentio fit manunm impo­sitionis, semper ea Apostolis caeterisque Episcapis, nunquàm vero plebi tri­buitur. The Doctor answers to this; In Historiâ novi Testamenti, exempla babemus constitutionis Ministerii, & ejusdem etiam conserva­tionis, sed non restaurationis ejus aut reformationis post generalem Apo­stasiam; omnia igitur quae pertinent ad plebem fidelem, in tali casu non re­presentantur ibi certis exemplis. However these words seeme to carry it, as if the Doctor did hold, that the people had this power, in a generall Apostasie, yet I question whether the Doctor would looke upon the Churches of England now under such a notion, neither would he deny the ordination of our Ministers, to be valid for substance; but yet here one might cast in something, in times of Reformation it may be, he saith:

1 To Reforme the Minister, is to Forme it now as it was first formed.

But the Ministry was not at first formed by the people, ergo the Ministry cannot be now reformed by the people.

I thinke the Major will not be denyed, for the Minor, let any prove that. According to this some will say, We must have Apostles, they formed the Ministers first [we speake of or­dination] I say, Non sequitur, unlesse you can prove the Apostles ordained only quâ Apostles; if so, I know not how those Mi­nisters, whom the Apostles did ordaine, could ordaine others, but to be sure they did.

2 I defire a text of Scripture that holds out this, that the people may ordaine in a generall Apostasie.

3 I doubt we shall rarely finde such times, when there is a Society of godly Christians to ordaine, but there is some Ministers also; ordinarily there are Ministers who teach this people.

4 It will be a question, Whether the Apostasie hath been such as to require this, for if Baptisme was not repeated, but was thought valid, though administred by a Romish Minister, because he was set apart to the worke, and kept the essence of the ordinance, why might not the ordination administred by those Ministers hold as well?

2 A second ground that makes me doubt is this, it seemes strange to me, that Christ should appoint extraordinary officers, [Page 73]and make that a part of their work, which the people themselves may doe; Paul leaves Titus to ordaine, but what needs that? the people might well say, what need Paul leave Titus to do that, which we can doe our selves? Frustra fit per plura, &c. the Apostles never needed but to preach, and convert the people to the faith, when they had done so, they should have said, we have now done our worke, brought you to be beleevers, you may now elect an Officer, and ordaine him your selves, the power is yours, (onely here would have been some trouble about baptizing) since then I finde, that this was part of thier Office, then I cannot beleeve this is the peoples worke. Paul might easily have left us a president in some Society of Christians, that would have quieted all our disputes.

More might be said (and is said by others) but I see our New Eng­land Divines do almost yeeld it, by giving power to some Ministers to ordaine in other Congregations.

Since nothing can be drawn from Scripture, by precept, or example to prove this, hence some would draw it out by Argument.

Those who can do the greater, may doe the lesse.

The people can doe the greater, viz. elect.

Ergo,

The minor is as freely denyed, as it is affirmed, election is not the greater, Scripture-light being judge. That was the designe I doubt of making Ordination but an Adjunct, for so indeed it would easily bee granted, if election gives the essence, and this only be an adjunct, the people may well ordaine; Yea, and in a Church, where there are Offi­cers to Ordaine, I know not why they, who give the essence may not give the adjunct, why should an adjunct be proper to the Officers only in that Church, when the essence doth not belong to them, Mr. N. W. Omnis quaestio non per aliud quod quaeri­tur babebit resolutio­nem nec ambiguitas per ambi­guitatem, sed ex elaris manifestis, &c. Irenae l. 2. c. 10. further then as members, they joyne with the people? for so it seemes the Of­ficers elect as members, and if you doe elect only as members, why should you not also ordaine as members? for election is the greater, this the lesse.

The other Argument is, the people are the first subject of the pow­er of the keyes. Ergo: But this is not easily yeelded; it was a witty speech of him, Let the Elders keep the keyes, and the people the key­clog; it proves so too often. What our Divines have said about it is well knowne. I thinke they have battered this notion pretty well.

Augustine sometime is quoted for this opinion, but I am confident it was never in Augustines thoughts; In Evan. Joan. Tract. 50. Tract. 124. I am mistaken, if he be not rather for the Catholick Church [Page 74]by his words especially in the latter place quoted, not mentioning what other Divines have spoken, there are two or three things that have made me doubt of this, so as I never did throughly close with this no­tion, when I was but a private member of a Church.

1. That which is the primum subjectum, is the proprium sub­jectum: none doubt of this, Proprium subjectum est quod cum suo accidente reciprocatur. Animal est proprium subjectum sensus, ho­mo risus, hence we say, omnis homo est risibilis, & omne risibile est homo, this is Axioma [...]: but every Axiome that is [...] doth include in it the rule [...], where the predicate is true de omni subjecto, omni loco, omni tempore, this is true of animal & sensus. So it must be true of the power of the keyes and the Fra­ternity, Omni tempore; but if we finde the power of the keyes exer­cised before there was a Fraternity, then there was some other subject before the Fraternity; When Paul came to Corinth, he preached Authoritativè, Ergo there was the power of the keyes in some sub­ject, but the Fratemity was Non-ens at this time, how then could they be the subject?

Those, who are the effect of the power of the keyes, are not the first subject, that is clear.

But the Fraternity is the effect; it was so in all the Churches, which the Apostles gathered, and is indeed to this day. This was one Argu­ment troubled me.

So that which is primum, is immediatum subjectum: but how can this be? since Mediantibus Apostolis, and so now Mediantibus Ministris the Fraternity is made: The elector is before the elected: its true of Christ, who elected the Apostles, and gave to them the keyes, from whom by a continued succession of Ministers still the Fratemity was made; but had not the power of the keyes had some effect, there had not been a Fraternity to choose an Officer: though they are now in time before him, whom they now elect, yet they were not before him or them [quâ fratres] who by the power of the keyes in the mi­nistry made them capable to choose an Officer; therefore the power of the keyes was in some subject before them.

Besides election is no part of the power of the keyes, Doma: log. p. 461. Keckes. syst: log. l. 2. c. 20. therefore to argue, the people elect, ergo they are the first subject, &c. is fallacia non causae procansâ [causae nomen hic usurpat ur pro quo vis argu­mento] taking that to be a part of the power which is not.

2 If so, that which is primum, est absolutum subjectum, cui ac­cidens absolutè sint ulla limitatione partis inharet: sic animal est [Page 75]absolutum subjectum sensus, adeoque visus & auditus; ideoque tan­tum animal dicitur rectê videre & audire: oculus non videt pro­priè, quia non est Animal: quando ergo oculus dicitur videre, id non subjectivè intelligendum est, sed instrumentaliter, quod animal videat per oculum. To apply this to our case, the power of the keyes is in the whole body, so the power of preaching &c. there is the power subjectivè & propriè; so that if we aske who preached to day, we must answer, properly and subjectively the people preached, but in­strumentally only the Pastor preached; so for the administration of the Sacraments, this is very harsh; hence againe, because animal videt, if a man dye, or beast, the eye which was the instrument of seeing, ex­cepting it may be the dissipation of the animal spirits, else as an Or­gan, it remains intire in the coates, humors and optick nerves, but yet it sees not.

So it seemes a Minister, in case his body, the people, should dye, he being but the instrument of their preaching, he can preach no more: this is strange; how doe they preach out of their own bodies ordinati­ly? If the men dye, and only women and children be left, the officer hath lost his preaching, and cannot preach to them authoritatively, because the Fraternity, in whom the power was subjectivè, is dead.

3 I have observed, that seven have been esteemed enough to make a Church; suppose now one of these should offend another of the seven, he must deale with him, if he will not heare, he must take two more, here are four of the seven, if he will not hear them, tell the Church, that is, the three left, the rest are parties.

Some to prove that Mat. 16. To thee I give the Keyes, must be meant the Fraternity, say, that To Thee, here is the same with Mat. 18.

But this is somewhat doubted, for that in Mat. 18. may well bee meant of a particular Church, The visible Church is here meant saith Mr. Hoober Sur. p. 278. but in this place the Church must bee meant of the Catholike visible Church: for it must be such a Church as must not faile.

But particular Churches may, this or that particular Church I meane.

2 But suppose i the so, yet why must that Mat. 18. be meant on­ly of the Fraternity? Tell the Church, i. e. the Fraternity, if hee will not heare the Church, i. e. the Fraternity, where are the Officers, are they no body? one in New England would needs know of me, why they should tell the Ministers of it, when as it is, Tell the Church, not the Ministers? this indeed would confirme it, and here we should have brave order.

Mr. Vind. vin. p. 6. Cawdry upon that Text seemes to have a good Argument, ‘since that the Kingdome of Heaven is there meant the Church, the keyes are given to Peter as distinguished from the Church; It is not a reasonable construction (saith he) of the Text to say, I give to thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, that is, of the Church, and to mean, I give to the Church the keyes of the Church; whence he concludes, they were given to Peter, and so to the Officers for the Church, as the keyes are given to the Steward for the family.’ This Argument is worth the Answering.

Object. The strongest Objection to mee is this, the first subject takes up the whole adjunct, for there is a reciprocation; therefore the Presbytery cannot be the first subject, for the keyes are not reciproca­ted with them; instance is given in Election, Admission of Members, Discipline, which cannot be performed without the Fraternity.

Answ. If reciprocation be so required, &c. then this will as well deny the people to bee first subject, for reciprocation cannot bee with them; for Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, Government &c. to be sure the people cannot doe; there will be more said for the Pres­bytery; they actually choose, they actually admit, they actually govern and exercise discipline, they have both the Power and the Act: but for the people they cannot doe any Act which belongs to the Offi­cer, nor have so much as the power of it: we may see by this, where the power will cheifly reside: to say, the Fraternity, though they have not officiall power, yet they have power to chuse an Officer, and so consequently, they are the first subject, this is very unsatisfactory, to have the Adjunct reciprocated at the second hand, it being denyed before that they have the Adjunct; the reciprocation betweene homo & animal risibile is not at second hand

2 This doth not at all shake me, but I stand on my ground still, con­ceiving, that the Church or ganized is the first subject of the power of the Keyes, not that I make the people equall sharers in the pow­er of the keyes with the Officers, but what I mean I shall expresse af­terwards.

3 Yet am I not satisfied (nor could ever be) that whatever belongs to the Church must needs be included in the power of the keyes; E­lection, I look at it only as Potest as circa claves, but not to be a pow­er of them.

The Text tells us the use of them, what thou bindest, what thou loosest, to bind and to loose is the use of them: but what is this to the election of an Officer? when as hee may refuse their Call, or the Call [Page 77]of any Church? how doe they loose him or bind him? Electio non­cogit.

For the other two things, Admission, and Discipline: Those Divines, who say, that Baptisme makes men Members of the Church, if they can prove this strongly, they will carry away the former, scil. that the people have nothing to do in Admission of mem­bers, for baptisme makes members; now to this I cannot yet fully agree, there might be much said for the contrary. I conceive the New England Divines have spoken well to this besides the opinion of M. Cartwright, Ans to 32. Qu. p. 12. and Ames, who joyn with them.

So, those Divines who affirme the Presbytery may excommunicate, renitente plebe, if they can prove it strongly, they will carry away the latter, and then indeed its cleare, the people have no interest in the power of the keyes; but this neither can be admitted, and the streame of Divines oppose this.

But though I yeeld the Ministry cannot orderly doe these things without the people, yet I deny the people do these things in the same way and order, that the Ministry doth them: And therefore Quaere, Whether it be proper to say, the people hath any power of the keyes?

For Admissions, this will be more troublesome, because we finde no examples of the Churches where the people did shew their power in Admissions: for that act of Paul, Act 9.26, 27. Whether it be suf­ficient to prove it, I leave it to consideration; they did not admit, why? they were afraid of him, the text saith, being a persecutor, then no wonder the Apostles, as well as the people, were afraid of him; the 27 verse saith, Barnabas carried Paul to the Apostles, not to the people, which would imply, the Apostles carryed the stroke in Admissions.

Further to search into this, let us suppose the Ministry of the Church of Corinth preach, an Infidell heare them, the man is so far convinced of the vanity of his Heathenism, and danger of his sinful lusts he wallow­ed in, and so far convinced of the necessity of that Doctrine which he heares, that he renounces his Idols, reforms his conversation, &c. now he comes to the Ministers to signifie what is done, and what he de­sires, to be received into the Church, and be baptized, being willing to give up himselfe to that doctrine: the Ministry [instrumentally] hath wrought this; now what power hath the people here to hinder this man? is it at their choyce whether they will admit him or no? when the Officers see what effect the preaching hath had, here being a Disciple made, shal they be hindred from baptizing him? what power [Page 78]have the people here? what shall they goe first and examine him? I know not where examination was ever given to the people; must he make his profession of faith before all the Church, as Victorinus that brave Rhetorician? Aug. Con fes. l: 8. c: 2. we find it was not their course to doe so with all those whom they admitted, for many did onely to the Presbyters: This power indeed the brethren have, that if any know this man to live in a known way of wickednesse, that cannot possibly stand with any hopes of faith, to come and give in witnesse against such a person to the Officers: I suppose this will be yeelded, and the Officers would not now baptize him. But what power more they have, I know not; they see his conversation, and can testifie of that, but it were strange that it should be left to the peoples choyce, whether they will admit a man or not, when the word hath had so much power, and they cannot bring in sufficient objections to the contrary. Put case the major part of the members of the Church had drunk in some errors [that a major part may do so, hath been proved in our time] and they will not give their consent to the admission of the man, if they finde him not of their opinion [commonly those who have drunke in error, use to look un­towardly upon those who are contrary] now the Ministers have no power to admit this man, nor baptize him, though they see he hath right to it. But I leave that.

For Discipline, I conceive renitente plebe, the Eldership should not excommunicate: it is in vaine to doe so indeed, if the people will hold communion: but yet this doth not argue that the people doe here act, as doth the Eldership; For the Eldership doth it Authoritativè, the people by a popular consenting with the Officers, that the person bee excommunicate: the people doe act here obedientially to their Offi­cers, therefore a vaste difference is betweene them. I remember a passage of Mr. Hookers in the Assembly of Divines; When a case is brought to the Elders, the Elders having searched all things to the bottome, now the Elders bring the case to the Fraternity, and lay it down clear before them, this is the case, and this ought to be done, now (said he) the people are bound to obey us, as well as when wee preach. And it is cleare, for as in preaching they discover the minde of God, so in this sentence they declare the same concerning this act. Keyes 15 2 Cor. 10.6. We have in readinesse to revenge all disobe­dience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Mr. Cotton saith, ‘the A­postles revenge of disobedience by way of reproofe in preaching, doth not follow the peoples obedience, but proceedeth, whether the people obey or not; it was therefore their revenge by way of censure in Disci­pline, [Page 79]which they had in readines, when the obedience of the Church is fulfilled in discerning and approving the equity of the Censure, which the Apostle, or Elders have declared to them from the word.’

That phrase, discerning and approving of the equity, needs a little more clearing; but I leave them: However this Reverend Divine seems to refer that obedience unto the wil of Christ, by the words go­ing before his exposition, yet that hinders not, but it may in some sence be applyed to their officers [who also obey Christ] for that phrase is not strange to have people obey their officers, Heb. 13.17. O bey your Rulers, there may be some thing in it, not only obey your Teachers, but Rulers; when they rule, as when they preach, Mr. Norton expressing, Resp. ad Apol. p. 67. as I con­ceive, how the brethren act with the Eldership [for so I remember it was in his Tables which I had, & had some thoughts to have Printed them, but in that great fire, when Colchester was besiedged (having lent them to a friend) they were burnt, as I heare) Partes judicii in rebus jurisdictionis, quales sunt fratrum examinatio, dijudicatio & senten­tiatio Causae per modum obedientiae, Presbyterio debitae, 2 Cor. 10.16. & cap. 2.9.

Mr. Gillespie, also besides his own opinion giveth reasons, Aar. rod, p. 289, &c. and al­ledgeth ‘divers Divines, who interpret this place of Church censures: & these words, when your obedience is fulfilled, gives him one ground for his interpretation: for as Estius and Novarinus explain the Apo­stles reason, it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of excommunication,’ when there is a generall renitency in the Church: but still we observe the people act obedientially to their officers, that they did not at that time, was their fault.

Besides, if excommunication be the highest act of Rule, and there­fore cannot be performed where Rulers are not, as saith Mr. Cotton: and if a homogeneall body can expresse no spirituall Jurisdiction, but onely withdraw, as saith Master Burroughs, then the people hav­ing Rulers, are not now made Rulers, nor have the power of juris­diction; there is indeed jurisdiction exercised among them by reason of their Rulers, to whom they consent and obey.

Government is proper to the Presbytery, saith acute Mr. Norton, Resp: ad Apol. p: 65 67: and shewes under seven particulars how the Presbyters governe in Church affairs, and so in this exercise of Discipline: if so, then the peo­ple are governed in this act; how then doth a people governed, act in reference to Rulers governing, but by way of obedience? So that to mee there appeares a vaste difference betweene the power [Page 80]of Discipline, as it is in the hands of the Presbytery, and as in the hands of the people, though the Ministers cannot excommunicate with­out the people.

I speake a few words to this point here, because I would spare the labour in another place.

As for the Analogy drawne from the civill power, the people are the first subject of civill power; Ergo the Fraternity is the first sub­ject of Church power; For the Antecedent I leave that, but the con­sequence I should deny, there is a great disproportion.

First, The People are not the effect of their Magistrates, or follow after them (as the people of Israel were not of Saul) but the Fraternity, quâ sic, is the effect of the Ministry: The Apostles converted, and after them the Ministers converted; Converting is but to make the people such, for whom the power of the keyes is gi­ven:

Secondly, There is some thing in this; In Corporations, if the peo­ple have elected a man to be an Alderman, or Mayor, if he refuse it, there is a Fine set upon him; some have been fined 20 li. some more according as the Corporations are: but if the body of the people will choose an Officer, and he will refuse it, what then? I know no kind of Church act that reaches him: this shewes there is something more in civill then Church power,

Thirdly, The people do give to their Magistrates a power to make Lawes, &c. for their good; but the Church gives no power into the hands of her Ministers, but they have all their power immediately from Christ.

Fourthly, Hence the people may limit their people, or inlarge it: But the people cannot limit, nor inlarge the power the Ministers have.

Fiftly, We see the Magistrates Act in the name of the people [in the name of the Commonwealth of England] but Ministers doe not act in the name of the Church, but Christ; as saith Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Norton before quoted.

More might be produced, but I content my selfe with these; and though that maxime be received, Salus populi, Suprema lex, yet it hinders not but the people may save themselves, though they be not the first subject of the keyes. Mr. Richardson, whom Dr. Ames and Mr. Manuscr: Tables. Hooker, honoured much, and follow much, placeth the power of binding, and loosing in the Governours, not in the people.

This discourse I have runne into by answering to the first Proposall, [Page 81]which being the maine, I have bestowed more lines about it; the rest I shall run over quickly. Come we now to the se­cond.

The second Proposall may be this; The se­cond Pro­posall. No Con­gregational Divine dares put the forme of a Church in the expli­citenesse of the Cove­nant, but these doe. Survey, pare first, p. 47, 48. Wee would have an ex­plicite Covenant in every particular Church, this we judge to be the forme of a Church, and we cannot joyne with a Church without it.

A. Many people have taken up this by the end, a Covenant is the forme of a Church, understanding it of an explicite Covenant, but they know not what a Forme is; if they did, they would be more wary then they are. But let us heare what Congregatio­nall men say, from whom you take up this word.

1 Mr. Hooker saith, an implicite Covenant preserves the true nature of the true Church, &c. and an implicite Covenant is, when in their practise they doe that, whereby they make them­selves ingaged to walke in such a society, according to such rules of government, which are exercised amongst them, and so submit themselves thereunto, but doe not make any verball profession thereof. Thus the people in the Parishes in England, when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron, or Bi­shop, they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place, attend all the Ordinances there used, and the Dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them, &c. by such actions, they declare that by their practises, which others hold forth by publick profession; thus farre Mr. Hooker, so Mr. Norton, Resp. ad Apollon. p. 22.28. so the Confession of Church Disc. by the Synod of New England.

2 You have a Nationall Covenant, a solemne one, I thinke it is strong enough if you observe it well: there is that which an­swers the Covenants you finde made in Scripture.

To say, by that we are made a Nationall Church; this were very silly, yet I thinke there may be so much said for a Natio­nall Church that will not readily be answered. But suppose the Churches in New England [which God forbid] should de­cline, &c. If the Generall Court should make such a Covenant to passe through all the Churches in the Colony, would it make a Nationall Church? they would conceive their Churches still to be Congregationall.

3 I make no doubt but you should have found (if you had but a little patience) that when the Ministers had come to set up Discipline, they would have brought their people under [Page 82]some stricter tye, to subject to Church Discipline, I have heard some speake of it; they would have found it too laxe, that implicite consent to make people put in execution that, Matth. Read his first chap­ter, in some Churches he saith, there was Solennis protestatio subjection is, sub disci­pliná Eccle­siasticâ. p. 13. 18.15, 16, &c. as some have found before them; and it was not without some cause that Apollonius sets downe that, as one thing that is required of a Church-Member, and whom they will admit to the Lords Supper, That he shall promise to sub­ject himselfe to Discipline; he tells us, thus it was concluded up­on in severall Synods, he mentions fix Synods. I have found the experience of this so already, that I should thinke my selfe in a poore case to exercise Discipline without it; the people feele some stricter tye upon their spirits, and I thanke God I have knowne good effects by it.

4 If you will needs goe closer doe, you may enter into a close Covenant, as did those worthy Christians in Wetherfield, in that old Prophets dayes, who sets downe their Covenant in his seven Treatises; but they did not separate as you doe. Ex­cell those Christians if you can.

The third Proposall; The third Proposall. We would have no Church-Members but vi­sible Saints.

A. This were a thing to be wished indeed, and that I beleeve which the Ministers would be glad, if they could attaine it; I gave you instances before out of their Bookes, and it is that which they would put forth their power to effect, so farre as the state of the Kingdome is capable of, if once they were in­vested with power to exercise Discipline; and indeed as the condition of England stands, there is need of a Civill Power to back them; the case is not now, as in the Primitive times.

2 You must put a difference between Churches new erecting, and these in England, which have been Churches so long; when I raise a house new from the ground, I may then doe as I please, but if I be mending of an old house, I must doe as well as I can, repaire by degrees.

3 What would you have done with all the rest, Excommu­nicate them? that's a peece of work indeed; and besides, there is a great deale of worke to doe before we come to that, it may be many will not be found contumacious; nay you see, they doe separate them from the Lords Supper, and divers begin to looke something more narrowly to baptisme.

4 How many corrupt Members doe you finde in the Church [Page 83]of Corinth and Galatia? for the latter, what a change was there made in their affections towards Paul? Gillesp. Aar. rod. 287. who close did they cleave to those Judaizing Zelots? who turned them away almost to another Gospel, insomuch that though Paul wished those Seducers were cut off, Gal. 5.12. i. e. by Excommunication, yet he did not peremptorily command it, renitente Ecclesiâ. The Church of Corinth had drunke in vile errours, the women it should seeme (disorderly) would speake in the Church; and for Members, 2 Cor. 12.20, 21. you may conceive by the sins there mentioned, what they were many of them, Ch. 13.2. Aar. rod, 289. Paul indeed saith, he wil not spare them. This place Master Gillespie thinkes gives light to, Ch. 10. & 6. When your obedience is fulfilled; our Ministers debarresuch from the Supper.

5 If you did not thus separate from them, they might doe more towards the reforming of their Congregations, but you weaken their hands, as I shall touch hereafter.

6 But what doe you meane by visible Saints, what is requi­red, or how would you judge of one? what, would you have them reall Saints? I suppose you doe not thinke so, crosse to the texts, the Floore, the Drag-net, &c. what would you have such, as by the exactest scrutiny that can be made, we may judge to be Saints really? I defire your Texts for this. Did the A­postles doe thus when they baptised any? surely they must ei­ther judge by an Apostolicall Spirit, but we see they were mistaken if they did so; or else they must stay a good while and try men, winter them, The Chur­ches after took more time, but they did not come to that ex­act scru­tiny, &c. Bell. ener. to. 2. l. 2. c. 1. s. 5. and summer them (as we say) before they did judge of their Saint-ship; but this they did not doe, they baptised them quickly; such Members as the Apostles ad­mitted, we may, or else give us texts to the contrary. I have touched this in another Tract, desiring, that those who are for such strictnesse in Members, would give us their grounds; re­member Doctor Ames, Falsum est internas virtutes a nobis requiri, ut aliquis sit in Ecclesiâ quoad visibilem ejus statum.

The fourth Proposall; We would have power in admission of Mem­bers, and in Excommunication.

Ans. For admission of Members:

1 When you bring proofe out of the Word, what power Church-Members have exercised in admission of Members, I hope you shall finde none shall debarre you from having that power.

2 When there are Members to be admitted, who never were Church-Members, you shall finde it granted, but that is not our case here; if you would have power in admission to Sacra­ments, you have that liberty given you, to bring in Testimonie for, or against; and if you bring in sufficient proofes against persons, you shall finde they shall not be admitted; thus must you doe in any Church what-ever. If any good Christian shall come, and give in testimony for another, the Minister will gladly receive it.

For Excommunication, the Presbyteriall Ministers will not Ex­communicate without the peoples consent; you shall have li­berty [first asking leave of the Minister, who is the Ruler, and Mouth of the Congregation] to propound any question so­berly, and gravely, which you would have cleared, before you manifest your consent, if there be any thing darke to you, that so you may clearly obey them [for I hope you doe not looke to be equall with Officers in this Act] and I hope this is more then ever you saw practised in old times. Now that the Mini­sters will not Act against the people [I suppose they meane the Body of the People, for if they meane, unlesse all the peo­ple consent, I would not consent to the Presbyteriall Ministers in this, that some few particular persons, guilty it may be themselves in some degree, shall obstruct the sentence, when the sounder and major part of the Church consents] heare their owne words.

In the great Censure of Excommunication, Lond. vin­dic. p. 25 we say, That it ought not to be executed against the consent of that particular Congregation, to which the party to be Excommunicated belongs; The fifth Propos. this is full.

The fifth Proposall; We would have the liberty to Prophesie, as 1 Cor. 14, &c.

A. What doe you meane by Prophesying, or Prophets? If you meane such Prophets as we finde in 1 Cor. 14. & 12. &c. you have two things to prove:

1 That these were Prophets in no Office.

2 Rutherf. Div. right, presbyt. p. 271. Gillesp. Mis. c. 5 That the gift of Prophesying there mentioned was ordi­nary, and perpetuall; of the Presbyteriall Divines you have two men [there may be more for ought I know] to grapple with, that have strongly debated this question, and have answered all that is brought. Of the Congregationall Divines I finde two men of no small worth, who though in some extraordi­nary [Page 85]case in places where Ministers are not to be had, if there be any able Christian fit to speake, they would grant such a li­berty in a regular way; but for the places you bring to prove that it is an Ordinance of Christ for private members to pro­phesie, Keys 20. they oppose this: Mr. Cotton saith, That place 1 Cor. Resp. ad Apol. p. 125. 14.31. doth not speake of ordinary private members, but of men furnished with extraordinary gifts, he proves it afterward. Mr. Norton saith, Prophesie, concerning which Paul speaks, 1 Cor. 14. is not to be understood of any ordinary and perpetuall gift whatever, much lesse of an ordinary and perpetuall gift of private brethren, and that he proves.

I intend not to lanch forth Into this Controversie, for others have answered all those arguments that are brought; but let me say this, When I considered these places, 1 Cor. 12.28. God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers. The 29. verse, Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? In the same order he reckons them. So Ephes. 4.11. He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, &c. So Act. 13. 1. There was in the Church at Antioch certaine Prophets and Teachers, as Barnabas, &c. Prophets have ever their place next Apostles, and are ranked before Teachers; these texts are to me strong proofes, that these Prophets were no such private men as ours, nor their gifts ordinary; those that would be such must needs take place of their officers, you are before them, for these Pro­phets are alwayes placed before ordinary officers. That 1 Cor. 13.2. and 14. v. 22.30. these places wel considered will prove it was no ordinary gift.

But I would leave that way of arguing? and would argue against it from what I have observed about it.

1. It is needlesse, what need is there of it? I have observed that the ordinary time when these Prophets goe to worke, is after the Ministers have done preaching: what need is there of these men now to goe to Prophesying? why doe they not goe home and meditate upon the Sermons they have heard, and call them over in their families? but (for sooth) now the bre­thren must goe to Prophesie.

2. It is not onely needlesse, but it is dangerous, Satan hath a designe in it.

First, to undermine the power of the word preached, these persons who have heard two Sermons before, run now to Pro­phesying, [Page 86]where is the word the people heard before? Tortul. hath an observati­on of the hereticks then, Nec suis praesidibus reverenti­am nove­runt & hoc est quod. schismata apud here­ticos fere non sunt; quia cum sint, non apparent schismata. Praescrip. adv Hae [...]t. This is very true of these kinde of people, so far as I have ob­served among most of them. this fine thing hath put out that.

Secondly, his designe is to blast the Ministers, for I have ob­served, Ministers, nor their preaching is in any request with this generation, and the people are more taken with their pro­phesying, being a pretty new conceit, then they are with their officers preaching; be it never so solid.

A neare friend of mine (yet living) a Divine well knowne travelling into Germany, coming home in Holland he went to heare Mr. Ainsworth, who preached a very strong Sermon (the person was able to judge) while Mr. Ainsworth was preaching, my friend observed the carriage of his members, it was, he thought, not becoming the Ordinance (I will not write all he told me, left I should be thought to write out of malice) very dull and dead that was the fairest; when Mr. Ainsworth had done, they now were to prophesie; my friend said he observed, that those, who sate so dully and unreverently, while their Pastor was preaching very excellently, now their turne came to prophesie, rose up, and were so perke and lively, that he could but note their carriage. The word preached by officers, though never so able, doth little good, where this trade is driven.

3. I have observed, order with peace and unity, is seldome or never kept, where these persons flourish: one thinkes his parts are as good as his brothers; this man he carps, and findes fault with his brothers doctrine; then come differences in, and heart-burnings; this man would be thought to be the chiefe, and most called upon to exercise, another likes not that, jang­ling, discord, breaches, I have knowne to be the fruit of this good work.

4. I have rarely knowne any of these persons that were humble men: the bones of pride, and selfe-conceitednesse have stucke out shamefully in the chiefe of those, whom I have knowne; what others are, whom I have not knowne, I cannot tell, but the most gracious, savoury, humble persons that I have knowne, though as able as those who are so forward, yet they cannot be brought to this practice, but content themselves in improving what talents they have otherwise.

5. I doe not finde private men to be so able, as these suppose themselves to be; some particular persons, Christians of good [Page 87]experience, and ripe understandings, and some that are schol­lars may be able to speake to some points very well; but most what our Prophets deliver, either vile errours, as I have knowne, or else wrong the Scriptures very grosly many times: This man doth use to prophesie much, this is com­mendable in him that he is adverse to other er­rours. I have known other Christians besides him, very eminent and sound yet give grosse in­terpretati­ons of plaine Scripture. One of late was handling that Text of Cornelius, Act. 10. that he was a devout man, prayed, gave almes, &c. he cast this glosse upon it, that Cornelius was but as our devout Papists, that use also to pray, and give almes; this is strange that Cornelius was no other then such a one, doth the Scripture set such commendations upon such a person? I doubt the man did not well know what it was to be devaut in Scripture account; the next words, fearing God, might have helped him to understand what manner of one he was. Being at London within lesse then a yeare, I heard there was a meeting of Christians, and the brethren were to pro­phesie, and it seems it was their manner to speak ex tempore after the first had spoken; I suppose they would imitate that text, 1 Cor. 14.30. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, &c. I had no great stomacke to goe, yet I thought I would go hear, sup­posing that these persons who cry up prophesying, had something more excellent then other Ministers, especially being such ad­versaries to Black-coats: The text was 1 Thes. 5. Quench not the Spirit; the next words, Despise not prophesying, were brought in be sure, and charged home, that people should observe that, as one way of quenching the Spirit, I beleeve they spake ex tempore: Learning, and Ordination they were cryed downe; the glorious new lights brought in by the illiterate men were cryed up; but such a messe I had, that should our poore Country Black-coats prophesie no better, we should teach our people to despise pro­phesying.

These things I have observed in this new invented Ordi­nance: the summe is, when you bring us the men that are qua­lified for such a worke (such as that worthy and honourable man Mr. Winthrop, who was a solid man, a good schollar, and naturall Philosopher, fitted to speake excellently, and did sometimes, before Mr. Cotton went over to New England, when the officers desired him, but I never heard whether he did, af­ter Mr. Cotton came) and can prove those texts to be meant of ordinary gifts, and the Prophets to be persons out of office, then we shall give you leave to Prophesie, but not after other Sermons preached by your officers.

The last proposall is this, The last proposall. Wee would have liberty of Con­science.

Answ. Iren. p. 30. Mr. Burroughs saith, The Devill uses to take sanctuary in con­science, hoping there men will be tender; but enquiry is to be made, whe­ther he be indeed got in there, or in some other roome of the soule. What that worthy man hath spoken to this point, I refer the Reader to Chap. 6. of his Irenicum.

Because conscience is so often pleaded, and made the Asylum for every opinionist, let us search when a man may be judged by Christian rules to be swayed by conscience.

First, I would looke that such a man be one, that ac­cording to the best observation that can be made of him, hath a renewed conscience: I must finde him to be uniforme, else I weigh not what he saith about his conscience. There will be infirmities, but then they are but infirmities, and those truly lamented.

Though a man have a renewed conscience, Posito ab­stracto & concreto non statim ponitur modus a­gendi. yet I will not say that a true renewed conscience is the cause why he main­taines such an opinion, he may not be rightly conscientious in that.

Secondly, such a one is ready to give an account of his conscience if you call him to it, if he will not give me a reason what moves his conscience, I regard him no more: Consci­ence is but a Deputy, it cannot make Lawes, but they are made before.

Thirdly, such a man hath used all means, the best means he can, to find out Gods mind, prayer, reading, conferring with the ablest Saints, and such as have most skill to guide; yea, prayer and fasting, any way to finde out the truth his consci­ence is troubled about: If he hath not used the best, and all means, I weigh not his plea of conscience.

Fourthly, if after searching he cannot yet come to see what the streame of holy and learned men doe hold and practise, but must differ from them, it will be a trouble and griefe to his spirit, that he should differ from them, fearing lest God should hide it from him, seeing others how holy and able they are, and therefore thinking they may know more of Gods minde, then he doth.

Fifthly, such a man will walke very humbly and respectively towards those men, from whom he differs, being he knowes [Page 89]so holy and able, let us heare Mr. Burroughs speake: Exposit. Hos. c. 5. ver. 5. p. 395. But you will say, every man pleads conscience; how shall we know whether it be the stoutnesse of his heart, or the tendernesse of his conscience? Thus, if this man behaveth himselfe humbly, and the rather humbly in all other things, because he cannot see what his Brother doth in such and such particulars, and so is in danger to be an offence to his Brother, and therefore his soule is humbled, this is a good witnesse that it is meere conscience, and not stoutnesse that makes him differ: But now, if his behaviour be high, and proud, when he differeth from his brother, he doth not take it to be an af­fliction to him, that he cannot see what his brother doth, but censureth him, and thinkes that it is either through his weaknesse, or through his wilfulnesse that he will not see, and so carries himselfe high, and proudly before his brother, this witnesseth to his face that it is stubbornnesse, and singularity. Nay, then Mr. Burroughs, you have scarce left ten con­scientious Separatists in England, the former part of this I have not seen in any, the latter I have seen enough.

6 A man truly conscientious, &c. in those points where he doth agree with other learned and holy men, will there cleave close to them, in opposing also all other points which he judgeth to be false; he will not be a slye enemy, or scoffer of such, and a conniver at, and a favourer of other Sects and Opinions, which his heart tells him are not sound, or at least he doubts much of them.

Now the grounds of all these severall heads in the triall of him, who differs purely out of conscience, are these:

1. Because such a conscience in the very formall notion of it carrieth this, viz. this mans heart is awed, and carried away with the Majesty, and Authority of God and his Truth; it ar­gueth much grace, if one takes it in the true notion, then I am sure such a heart will doe all these things.

2 Such a man is awed with all truths, Ephes. 4.3. Phil. 2.2. 1 Cor. 1.10 and therefore the command of unity, to be all of one minde, to speake the same things; these have such a power on his spirit, as it puts him upon all these.

3 Such a man considers that to be an offence to other godly Christians, from whom he differs, is a thing that he had need take heed of; also a feare of weakning the worke of God in the place where he lives.

4 Such a one knowes the vilenesse of his owne heart, and is prying into his own weaknesses, others he can see more holy and [Page 90]able then himselfe, and hence he feares himselfe, and conceives such men, being so holy and neare to God, I feare he may re­veale that to them, which he conceals from me.

Now then, if you can bring us men who expresse all these, and walke truly by these rules, you shall not need to goe to the State, to get an Act for Toleration of tender consciences, for I doubt not but Churches will be very tender of such; God seldome leaves these to drink in any vile errour, if for a time they be mis-lead, he will discover his minde to them ere long, I am assured. But alas, how farre are our people from these things? I doe not rehearse them over againe, but either let these be disproved to be no rules to judge by, or if they be, there are not ten (as I said) of such scarce to be found in England, who separate from the Ministry, and Churches, and have betaken themselves to their private houses; yea, if we goe to our Con­gregationall Churches, and examine these, who plead for Li­berty of Conscience, we shall hardly finde these Rules ob­served. The summe is, you see, if indeed you be right consci­entious men, and lead by a pure Conscience in the points wherein you differ, you shall have that liberty that Christ would have allowed you, and none will Domineere over your Consciences.

I know of nothing more can be alledged, but I thinke I have taken in all that is brought against the Ministry, and Churches. It may be, some would be apt to cast in this, That the Ministers are no friends to the State, ergo, &c.

I shall not stay to give any answer to this more then thus:

1 The Separatists were, before this Government was erected, to be sure the leaven of all was layed, if not all actually sepa­rated.

2 Where there are Ministers, who are friends to the State, it is all one, for they separate for all that.

3 Matters of State differ from the Church matters, and they were also very intricate and darke, especially as some conceive, the Covenant and Protestation having been taken before, there­fore in intricate things more time should have been given, till you had seene God tying a knot upon things.

4 I know that many Ministers had not hung off so from the State, but that they saw such Separatists to be wincked at, they thought too much.

Obj. But you will say, Grant all this, that their grounds are insuffi­cient, why cannot you goe on in the worke of Reformation, set up Disci­pline, &c. and let these alone? how doe these hinder your worke from go­ing on comfortably?

Ans. If their grounds be insufficient, Schisme was estee­med a great evill in the A­postles times: those little mat­ters in the Church of Corinth not compara­ble to ours, how doth the Apo­stle speak against them? so in the Ages after, as may be seene in August. contra Per­meni: &c. Irenae saith, Nulla ab eis tanta fieri potest correptio, quanta est Schismitis pernicies, l. 4. c. 26. So our Divines of late against the Papists, to prove they were not guilty of Schisme, have laboured strongly, but outs doe but phansie grounds, and make a tush at Schisme. then why doe they not come backe againe to the Churches from which they have de­parted? but before I give the answer, let these things be ob­served.

1 Few of these, who have any true good in them, but must and have acknowledged they have received it from the Mini­sters, yea, in those times, when there was much more corrupti­on in the Churches then now.

2 Since they have left their Ministers they have got nothing; many lost the savour once they had, and some their comforts that were true, and some of these I know have come home a­gaine; generally they run out of one errour into another, that is their thriving.

3 I never heard of one true Convert that was ever brought home to God amongst them all; indeed the Principles they maintaine, will not stand with sound conversion; for no Law must be to awaken men, and shew them their vile condi­tion naturally, worke of faith is easie; teach no duty, but all Christ, [as if men could truly teach Christ, and no duty] these things speake enough against them.

But I answer further, If the Classicall and Congregationall men would but joyne together [as they may if they will] and set upon that worke, they might doe something, notwithstan­ding these persons, but yet they cannot comfortably hold so long as these are tolerated.

Quest. Why, what harme have these done, or will they doe?

Ans. I shall tell you, under severall particulars.

1 They have much weakned the hands of the Ministry in the worke, they were once the joy of their Ministers, their Crown, and had they held close to them still, holding up their old Principles, and walking reverently, they had very much com­forted their hearts, and strengthened their hands, now they [Page 92]came to the worke of Reformation; they could in time of Per­secution, when Ceremonies, and such trash abounded, cleave to them, and to those, who were silenced, they were a comfort; but now those who should have joyned with their Ministers, and carried on the worke with joynt prayers, they are gone. Cyprian compares the unity of the Church, De unitâ Eccles. 1 Kings, 11.30. to Christs Garment which had no seame, nor was divided; Schisme he compares to the Garment which Abijah rent in twelve peeces, that was not good for Salomons house, how did it weaken the Nation? thus have these rendings weakned our Churches exceedingly: Vis unita fortior.

2 They are now turned the greatest Persecutors the Ministers have, for tongue persecution it is wheeled about, and resides in this Generation: Puritans, Precisians, were the old termes, but now the termes are, Baals-Priests, anti-christians, Priests, and Black-coates are the soberest termes, besides other jeeres and scoffes; nay yet worse, many of these would have the Mini­sters utterly rooted up [we heard of a Petition drawne up by some of them to be presented to the house for that end] they have threatned us what they would doe, and I doubt not, if the State would give them their wills, this should be their first vote, Down with the Ministry; so that all the old Persecutors were not comparable to these, they would have some downe, but honour the calling, these would cut downe all.

3 They are the Nurseries of all Errous and Heresies; where is there one society that is not tainted? who can tell how grosse they are [though we know many grosse enough] for they meet in private houses, who can tell what they vent there? but if they get into Pulpits, then they will vent something, and thence we may guesse of the rest; some of them have spoken a gainst the Scriptures, yet some againe would have the Apo­crypha to be Canonicall; as a company of Anabaptists spent the after-noon of a Lords day, to prove the Apocrypha to be so; the London Ministers have set downe some bad enough in their Vindication, Mr. Edwards also [only he should not have jumb­led all Independents together, as if they did favour such vile O­pinions, he should have spared some] now if we have such Nur­series among our Churches, we shall finde it a difficult worke to keep our Churches cleare: some of these cursed seeds will be blowne into the Gardens.

4 They cause Church-Members to walke irregularly: if any doe not walke as they should, or have drunke in any poyson, if now the Brethren first, and then the Officers come to deale with them, they care for no body. If they be of any number to make a Society, that they can meet together, then they will rend away, and so meet together; but if not so many (if but one) yet they know where there is a Society of Separatists, who wil take them in; and hence, what care they for all Officers and Churches? But have you experience of this you will say? Yes that I have, I could instance quickly in more then one Church. Hence I have heard Congregationall Ministers say, it was but a vaine thing to goe about to gather a Church in a Town where the Separation was, or if it were neere, neither have they gathe­red any.

5 They doe labour to draw away the hearts of our Members from us; it hath been the language of some to my people, You must not beleeve the Black-coats. Another time preaching about familie duties, as it lay in my Catechise in order, one of them would needs know of one of my people, what I had to doe to preach such things, I must teach Christ; so none shall finde any setling who attend upon Ministers; but blessed be God, there be many who can tell them its false, and I pray God keep me from their setling.

6 They have spoyled many hopefull young Plants, persons newly awakened, who have given some hopes; they have come in, and [like the spirits at London] stolne them away; this bles­sed Burroughs complained of, whose Ministry in the beginning of these troubles worked excellently, and hoped for a fine crop, but this Generation got away those young ones, Cap. 5. v. 7. p. 431. as they saw them moved, and leavened them with their errours; thus this man lost many of his hopefull Plants; yea, I finde some­thing in his Exposition upon Hosea, where though he doth not expresse his owne particular trouble concerning this [for what I mention, was his speech to some friends, I could set it downe larger then I have done] yet there is the thing, I know no such dreadfull argument of Gods displeasure against this Nation [these are weighty words, yea, he repeates it over againe at the end of the same Paragraph] as this, that as soone as young ones begin to know Jesus Christ, there are presently corrupt errours infused into them, under the notion of honouring Christ and free grace, &c.

For my owne selfe I am but weake, and God hath not ho­noured me in that kind, so as others of his Servants, yet I have known where I have been bestowing paines, and have had some hopes, within a fortnight that an apparent change hath beene discerned: Some of this generation have come to draw them a­way into their Societies; telling them they shall never bee settled if they attend upon Ministers.

If these things be seriously considered, you may easily judge how comfortably our worke will goe on, while these are tole­rated amongst us; this is poore comfort for Ministers to goe about Church-worke, when as if their members will prove wanton, if their officers come to deale with them, and send for them, they shall scorne to come at them, and send them base letters abusing their officers (I could set downe in the margent where such things have been acted, but I forbeare) this is no­thing, so long as the Separatists, the enemies of the Ministry, are tolerated, for they can resort to them, yea, if all the members of Congregationall Churches, as well as of Presbyte­rian Churches, will separate from their Officers, and goe into their private houses, they may if they will, if they doe but meet together and exercise their gifts, it is sufficient. So that though Christ hath appointed the standing ordinance of the Ministry, and left the example how these shall bee orderly cal­led, yet here is the foundation laid to destroy that Ordinance, and bring in nothing but confusion; Christ was faithfull in his house as a Sonne, and ordered all things in that house, he hath used his Ministers hitherto to bring home those that he hath elected and purchased, he will have his house upon the Mountaines, but now we are come to this point not to care whether we have Ordinances or no, officers or no, what comfort then can we have in going about this work of reforming our Churches?

But further if it be well observed, these people are no such friends to the State, though they are looked upon as the onely friends the State hath; it will appeare if we consider them in a morall or politicall respect.

First, for the morall respect, the strength of a Christian state lies, in having Christ on their side, and I am sure the strength of our State lyes there; now is that a way to keepe Christ on our side, to tolerate those who seeke to undermine [Page 95]that whereby he is knowne in the world? take away Ordinan­ces, and the Ministers who are appointed by him to dispense these Ordinances, where shall we know Christ? but these la­bour to doe this. Can it be for their safety to tolerate such, that hinder his visible Kingdome from being set up, (at least with poore comfort?) what is the reason that all this while there is no Discipline set up? why are we in such a shattered broken condition? no man hath any minde to stirre; our ob­structions are not from the Drunkards, Whoremongers, pro­phane swearers, &c. chiefly these carry so much conviction in their owne consciences, that they dare not much appeare; but these Schismes and Errors tolerated have been our obstructions: If it shal please the State but to put forth some power to heal these (not that I would have all errors knockt down with club-law) and but stand to the Ministry, I hope we shall see the Churches of England in another posture, and things so carried, that no man, who walks by a pure conscience, shall be justly offended; for as for the Classicall and Congregationall Ministers, they are come so near, that I beleeve there will be no difference be­tween them. Those who hinder Christs Kingdome, cannot be true friends to a Christian civill State. If any shall object, the State hath prospered since these Schismes, and Errors have had their liberty, therefore God doth witnesse for them: I should say there is little Divinity in this kind of arguing, viz. to ar­gue from Providence, to the maintaining of things crosse to the word of God: besides here is fallacia non causae pro causâ; For next to Gods own free & soveraign pleasure, which was the main cause, the instrumental cause of the prospering of Army, &c. must be referred to the many precious Saints of God, Ministers and others, who are men resolute for Christs Ordinances, and Offi­cers; men who stand to their old Principles, abhorring these Errors and Schismes; who very much fearing, least if the Scot­tish party prevailed in this way, there would be little liberty for the sound and moderate Presbyteriall men, as well as Congre­gationall, and therefore they lay in hard with God, by fast­ing, and Prayer, for the disappointing of the Scottish designes: and surely Christ hath more respect to his owne people, who are tender of his Ordinances, Truths, and Officers, and long to see him set up in all his Ordinances before they dye, rather then to such, as make light of all the former. Few of these Sepa­ratists [Page 96]trouble fasting and prayer very much, they are so full of joy; they cast off those flesh-afflicting Ordinances.

I would have none to mistake me, as if I were an enemy to the Church of Scotland. No verily, I doe much honour divers of the Ministers, and the Church of God is much bound to blesse God for their labours; both of former times, Rollocke &c. and also in these latter daies; I conceive that man is either proud, or ignorant, or er­roneous, who shall read Mr. Rutherford against the Jesuits, and Ar­minians, and doth not blesse God for him. Yea, the peeces that he, and Mr. Gillespie have writ concerning the controversies of these times, for their learning, and sweetnesse of spirit in them, who can but blesse God for them, yea, though in some places crosse to our Congre­gationall men? though they are condemned and sleighted here, yet they are reverenced, and highly esteemed amongst the worthies in New England.

Yea, I adde further, I wish from my heart, that the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, as I finde it set downe in Mr. Rutherford, and others, were set up in England, though in some points a little crosse to Congregationall principles; and yet lay all together, what I finde in Mr. Gillespie, I am so satisfied that I know men of moderate spirits in the Congregationall way, may be borne with, and live sweet­ly with them. What the practices of the people in Scotland are, I know not [I am sure they have not worse hearts then mine] they are not their Practices, but their soundnesse in Opinion, and Discipline I desire, they must be honoured for their purity in Worship, against humane mixtures, and for their soundnesse in the faith.

2 In a politicall respect they cannot be judged true friends to the State.

This appeares, First, From what we have observed already a­mong them; in that time, when the Levelling party stirred, how many of these did strike in with that party, is well known here in the Country, and other great Townes, by drawing up Petitions [onely they were interrupted in their worke] some again speaking most base­ly of the Parliament, they could match the old Royalists in their lan­guage; such, I say, as are now, and then were tolerated; and I doubt if that party moves againe, we shall see what faithfull Subjects these are, though now they are tolerated as friends.

Secondly, The tolerating of these keep other men of great holinesse, learning, and abilities from cordiall closing with the State; the Co­venant to be sure, is expresly against Schisme, and Heresie. I have [Page 97]heard leading men say, if there were a good Aristocracy set up in the Nation, so that we might have true Patriots for the Nation; and if they would take some order with these Schismes, and Errors, so that the Ordinances and Government of Christ might be set up, indeed they could submit very wel, if God shews it to be his mind to lay by Mo­narchy: Now it would be more honour and safety for a State, to have such men close with them, rather then such as these are; I have heard this from such, as are leading men before the Worcester fight, which I adde because it may be thought, now they would do it, now they see no other hopes.

I shall wind up this Discourse against our Separatists [many of which, I am sure, have before owned the Ministers; yea, and received Baptisme and the Lords Supper at their hands] by propounding a few Questions unto them.

1. Quest. Questions propound­ed to the Separatists Have you any thing against your Ministers in respect of their conversations [if they be scandalous in their lives, you have a way to help your selves] do they not walke in some measure as be­cometh Christians?

2 Is not their Ministry wholesome? doe they not preach sound­ly, converting, and edifying truths? though all have not the same gifts.

3 If you can charge them with either of these, have you with that respect, which becomes their places, dealt with them, and told them of such faults? have you told them once and againe, yet they have re­fused to heare you, while you have patiently waited? you must do so towards a private brother, before you part, much more with a Mi­nister.

4 Have you called in other Ministers to hear the Case, and to judge in it? or are you only your own judges?

5 Doe they mixe any thing in the Worship of God, so as you can­not joyn with them in the worship without sinne? and have you dealt with them as before?

6 If there be some thing which you would have received or done, have you given them convincing Arguments to prove it ought to be?

7 Was the thing you desired Tanti, of so great consideration, that the word wil clearly bear you out for separating, because you could not enjoy what you would have?

8 Might not meeknesse of spirit waiting a while have won your Mi­nisters to a yeelding in some degree to what you desired?

9. Was there no Church in the Towne before you separated, and entred into a Covenant together? (this I adde because some of these call themselves The Church) and are there no vi­sible Saints in the Towne but your selves?

10. When you did separate, whose counsell had you? what Churches joyned with you in the act, and also were present when you did joyne together, to heare your Confession of Faith, whether you were sound in the Faith or no?

I heartily wish they would give in Answers to these Questi­ons according to the word clearly, I thinke they will see them­selves snared. Let us in few words heare what others say con­cerning separation.

Mr. Hooker, Survey Chu. dis. in Pref. that eminent man of God saith, The faithfull Congregations in England are true Churches, and therefore it is sinfull to separate from them, as no Churches.

Mr. Norton, Resp. ad Apollon. p. 156. &c. another Congregational man, acute and holy, hath written upon this subject excellently: If the Separatists doe understand the Latine tongue, they shall finde their practises overthrowne and condemned, Rejicimus Separatistas non distin­guentes inter ecclesiam, & impuritates ecclesiae, Grave crimen schisma­tis. I wish we had a few of these Mr. Nortons in England, though he be a man who stands much for the peoples liberty, yet he so or­dereth their liberty, that our Ministers would be glad if they had their Churches governed, as is the Church whereof him­selfe, together with Mr. Na. Rogers, are officers; these are Congre­gationall men. De schis­mate. I will not rehearse what I finde in Camero, be­cause he wrote before these times, and will be reckoned for a Presbyterian; foure grounds he gives for separation, none of which I am sure our Separatists can alleadge, 1. Grievous and intolerable persecution. 2. When the Church is Heretical. 3. When Idolatry is set up. 4. When the Church is the seat of Antichrist. I shall conclude with a speech of his, Ʋt nihil aequè arguit ingenium spiritus Christi, ac studium conservandae societatis & unionis, in quo charitas elucet; sic etiam nullum est evidentius argu­mentum pravitatis ingenii humani (unde & inter carnis opera contentie­nes nominantur) quàm tumultuandi & rixandi studium.

Object. But you have spoken against godly men all this while.

Ans. Not against their godlinesse one word, their schisme & errors only I have opposed. But I know not what new Divinity we have got up in these dayes, that if they be godly men that drinke in [Page 99]errours, or practise inordinately; Oh, take heed how you speake, they are godly men; there may be an unwise speaking, when men shall onely fling out against persons, but confute nothing; but certainly godly men deserve reproofe as well as others; I hope the being of a godly man doth not make that to be no sinne in him, which is sinne in another; but here is the subtilty of Satan, and it was all the game he had to play in those times, I must now, saith he, get into an Angel of light, and I must worke among these godly professors, This w [...] Satans plot in Cyprians time as he men­tions in his booke De unitä Eccles. yet when he saw his heathe­nish wor­ship would not prosper. but was cast down, then hee plagued the Church with he­resie and schisme. if I can get some of those away, I shall get other hollow ones to cleave to them, and make a party: If I now make not a division among them, but that they joyne all with one shoulder to set up Christs King­dome, and thrust down mine, it will go hard with my king­dome; now therefore, finde fault with the Ordination of Mi­nisters, it was Popish, so separate from them; plead conscience, that is a tender peece; strive for exact purity (though it be beyond the rule as to visible Church-fellowship,) and thus he hath found out his wayes to damp all the worke of Reformation.

I shall say no more but this, though some of these Separa­tists are godly men, yet if godly men stand thus as now we do, I beleeve God will not spare us, though we be godly men, but he will ere long bring such plagues upon the professing party in England, as shall make their hearts ake. For my part, I look on England thus, there have been choice servants of God in England, who laboured under the Hierarchicall oppression, many strong cryes have they made for the removall of that burden, and that they might enjoy him in his owne Ordinances, without the mixtures of mens inventions; God hath given us in the answer of those prayers, as to the removing of what offended: and now saith God, looke you to it, yee Professors, I give the power (which never your Fathers saw) into the hands of the Puritanicall The old scoffe. party, let me now see how you will improve it for the advancement of my Church and glory; but verily if we improve it no better then now we do, we must look that God will not intrust us with this power long (he doth not use to stay long before he visits his Churches) but quickly deprive us of this liberty, and Lord if thou doest, thou shalt be just.

Having done with the Separatists, I shall now take a short view of the agreements and differences that are with, and be­tween the Classical and Congregational Divines, and then [Page 100]shall make bold to present an humble request to the Congregati­onal Divines.

1. Do the Classical-brethren stand for all the Ordinances of Christ, as Praying, Preaching, Sacraments, Discipline, &c? so doe the Congregational-brethren.

2. Do the Classical-brethren stand for Christs officers, Pastors, sach ers, Ruling-elders, Deacons, allowing such, and onely such? o doe the Congregational-brethren. They agree in worship and in officers.

3. Do the Classical-brethren hold to the old doctrines of Faith, Repentanee, holding up the preaching of the Law in its method, to prepare before faith, to guide after faith? so do the Congregational-brethren, such as we looke upon as sound, and esteem worth the regarding.

4. Do the Classical-brethren hold the government of the Church to be Presbyterial? so do the Congregational-men, such as are the most acute. Besides what Mr. Norton (none of the lowest ranke) hath asserted in his book which I quoted before, I have heard him say, That if the Congregational-government did make the government of the Church democratical, he would give up the cause.

For my part, I am but among the weakest of Gods Mi­nisters, but yet I thinke it were no hard matter to prove the government of the Church to be Aristocratical: I enter not now into the debating of the question, but this hath much stucke with me.

First, there is government in the Church, I meane an exter­nall politie, besides an internall government of the Spirit, what ever our phantastical Spiritualists have dreamed of; the Scripture is too plain against these.

Secondly, then there are governours and governed; this must needs be yeelded, else government cannot be; for governours there are, none that are sound in their wits can deny, if they owne the Scriptures.

Thirdly, the affaires then of the Church must be so carried, that these Relates may be kept distinct: for that government which destroys these, by making the Correlate, i. the body governed, to be governour (and so there are none governed) cannot possibly be, a government standing so much with the light of nature. There is no government, if all rule.

Obj. But how can the government of the Church be Aristocraticall, when as you carry things by the suffrage of the people?

Answ. I should desire also to propound these questions.

First, would you not, if now Churches were constituting, give the people this liberty, that if any could bring in good testimony against a man, who was to bee received into the Church, that they should do it, and if the thing be proved, will not you refuse to admit such a one?

Secondly, if it now come to casting out of a member, will not you give liberty to any of the brethren, who shall (first asking you leave to speak) in a sober, grave way, propound some que­stion to the clearing of the case in hand, before the people joyn with you in cutting off a member, I say, would not you give this liberty?

Thirdly, will you excommunicate renitente ecclesiâ? your books say otherwise, and you know what both our Ancient and Moderne Divines have affirmed in this point, and therefore I quote none.

I do not mention election to be given to the people, for that hath nothing of government in it, and this you give fully; but if you grant me the three former heads, then which way you will prove the government to be Aristocraticall, the same way I shall. I have spoken to this before, and therefore con­clude with Chamies, and others, the government is Aristo­craticall.

Obj. But how can this be, if the people will not consent, how are they governed?

Answ. Put case Jonathan had been indeed a great malefactor, and Saul would have had him legally and justly put to death, but the people would not consent to their King, but rescue Jonathan, shall we hence conclude, ergo the government of Israel is not Monarchicall? the case is the same here.

Now I am upon this head, I shall desire to make a little di­gression, before I proceed to any more heads. Mr. Edwards in a Sermon at Colchester laid down this Thesis.

That there was no such tyrannicall government in any Church (unlesse it were in the Church of Rome) as is in the Independent Churches; he proved it thus, They carry all things by the suffrage of the people, and if all doe not consent, they will censure them; how he will prove this? a speciall example, in the Church of Boston in New England, when [Page 102]they excommunicated Mrs. Hutchison; because her owne sonne did not joyne in the casting out of his owne mother, he was likewise cen­sured; an unnaturall thing, said he, and so carried it, that both his owne friends, and other Ministers, who were strangers, thought he was also excommunicated, as they told me when I spake with them.

The story doth something concerne the head I am upon, and therefore I make bold to insert it here. I was a little troubled at the passage, knowing well how things were carried, being present at that time, and so tooke occasion some few weeks after, to give a bare narrative how the thing was carried with so much meeknesse, I am sure as none could accuse me. The summe is this, When all wayes according to the word had beene tryed with Mrs. Hutchison to recall her, but none would pre­vaile, the question was put to the Church to manifest consent for her excommunication; her sonne and sonne-in-law (one more then Mr. Edwards mentioned) stood up to put some stop in the way (had they sate still, as any body would have ex­pected, though they had suspended their votes, I know not who would have spoken one word to them) Mr. Cotton rose up, and gave them a grave admonition, that though their naturall affection might now worke, for which hee did not blame them, yet he would not have them preferre their mother be­fore Christ, nor hinder their mother from that Ordinance, which might bee a meanes to save her soule; with these words they both sate downe: they never had any other censure (if this be a censure) and the Church proceeded in her excom­munication. Now I appeale unto all, to judge where was the tyranny in this act? yet though I carried this with all mild­nesse, this was the onely cause why Mr. Edwards raked up all he could against me, and put it into print, even such things as never were in my thoughts. But here you may see, they stand not upon the suffrage of all the people.

Fifthly, doe the Classical-men call for Synods? so do the Congregational-men, Mr. Cotton, Keyes c. 6. Mr. Norton, Respon. ad Apollon. p. 112. &c.

And certainly they are men of strange spirits, who deny Synods to be usefull, and no Ordinance of God: I doubt he did not well consider what his pen let drop, and left it to po­sterity, That he never saw any good that came by any Synod, but rather [Page 103]the contrary. A great Clerke indeed he was, but surely the man was in some passion; I am sure I have knowne the contrary, much good come by Synods; but some of our Independents snutch up this sentence of his, as if it were Apostolical. This is the difference, say the Congregational-men, the Synod bindes directivè, non juridicè, the Classical will have both.

When I observe what both sides speak of Synods, methinks this can be no such matter of difference.

The Classical Brethren say, Lond. Vind. p. 23 All the determinations even of Na­tionall Synods are to be obeyed no further, then they agree with the word of God; and that a Synod est judex judicandus; That Congregations are to examine with the judgment of discretion, what is sent to them from Synods.

Mr. Rutherford saith, Peac. plea. p. 322. The Acts of the Assembly oblige all the absents, not present in all their members, not because of the Authority of the Church, but because of the matter, which is necessary and agreeable to Gods word.

That people may not examine decrees of their Synods according to Gods word: That people may not reason or speake in their Synods, Ib. p. 246. we ac­knowledge no such Synods. This latter needs a little fencing, other­wise we should have confusion enough; our Churches in New England chose out of every Church, two of the ablest of the private brethren, and sent them as their messengers, these in­deed had liberty to speake and propound doubts in the Synod, but it was not left free for any body to speake, that would.

Mr. Gillespie states a question; ‘Suppose a scandalous person would come to the Sacrament, Aar. rod. 477, 478. the Minister knowing him to be so, adviseth the Eldership to joyne with him, and do their duty in keeping this person away, it may be they refuse; Appeale is made to higher Assemblies, Classis, Synod, &c. they it may be will judge him fit for the Sacrament, this is their sentence, must this Minister now obey the sentence of the Classis or Synod? His determination is, That the Minister being cleare in his conscience, and the matter of scandal suf­ficiently proved, he must not doe an unlawfull act in obedi­ence to men, but follow the rule, 1 Tim. 5.22. Keep thy selfe pure, his conscience illuminated by Gods word is a rule to him of his owne personal acting, or not acting.’

Come to the Congregational-men, Mr. Cotton saith, Keys p. 25 We dare not [Page 104]say that the power of a Synod reaches no further then the giving connsell, they bind burthens, they bind not onely materially, but formally, from the Authority of the Synod, See more, p. 53, 54.

Neither doe I see, that our reverend Divines in their preface to that book do oppose Mr. Cotton; for say they [in laying down Mr. Cottons judgement] Christ hath not furnished them only with ability to give Counsell, but with a Ministeriall power and Authority, to deter­mine, declare, and injoyn such things, as may tend to reducing such Congregations to right order and peace. But is there Authority? it may be my shallownesse; but for the present I doe not call to mind any power invested with Authority, but if they injoyne a thing to bee done, and it be refused, that Authority will reach further. Authori­tas cogit, as is the kind of the Authority, Civill or Ecclesiasticall.

‘Blessed Burroughs [in answering to that which some would have, Iren. p. 44. scil, that a Synod may formally excommunicate, because by ex­communication, they ( i.e. Hereticall Churches) are put out of the Kingdome of Christ, into the Kingdome of Satan, and this will ter­rifie] saith, consider whether this be not done before, and that with an authority of Christ, by those former six things (mentioned in the page before) for Hereticall Congregations, or persons are judged, and declared in a solemn Ordinance, by the Officers of Christ gather­ed together in his name, to be such as have no right to any Church Ordinance, to have no Communion with any of the Churches of Christ; now if this judgement be right, are not such persons or Congregations put out of the Kingdome of Christ, and put under the power of Satan, consequently?’

Certainly, this cannot be a ground of such difference, shall Non and Ex make such a stir, when Non is as bad as Ex? I should judge my self, I am sure, to be in as bad a case by the one, as the other, though for my part this notion of Catholike-visible-Church, hath made me ready to yeeld to Synods juridicall power; I could I say yeeld it, and yet not differ from these reverend Divines, if they follow home their non-communion close.

Now if you say, what doth this helpe against Hereticall Congrega­tions, though you have proceeded to Non-communion, they regard it not, but still go on in their Heresies, and leaven others? to that they wil say, what do they care for your excommunication, if all the Here­ticks in England were excommunicated, they would not care, but go on still. Indeed our New England Divines will teach us a way how to helpe it, viz. if a Synod hath declared against an Hereticall Congrega­tion, [Page 105]being pertinacious, and so hath proceeded to non-communion, they will call in the Civil power to help, and so they have a way to help by their non-communion, and this must be the help of them though they be excommunicated.

This Mr. Norton intimates, Resp, ad Apol. 148 Keyes 50 Iren. c. 4. Mr. Mar­shal re­lates, that Zuinglius in a pub­lick dis­pute did so stop the mouthes of the A­nabaptist; that they appearing to the Ma­gistrates unreason­ably ob­stinate, were ba­nish d the City, Defen. ag. Tomb. 58. Ecclesiae appellant Magistratum in causis Ecclesiae non ad doctrinam declarandam, vel disciplinam ex­equendam, sed ad doctrinam a Cencilio declaratam, vel disciplinam ab ecclesiâ applicatam sanctione Civili confirmandam. The dury which Mr. Cotton sheweth to lye upon the Civill Magistrate inferres as much. As also Mr. Burroughs. And thus it was in New England; when the Synod (at which the Civill Power was present, as to hear, so to keep civill order) had consuted and condemned the Errors and Heresies, and so was broke up, then a Generall Court was called, which soon suppressed those Heresies, and brought the Churches to peace again.

If the Civill power would do as much here, we should soon see our Churches in better order. What Civill Magistrates have done in this ease before, I need not mention, books are full. Its true, the Chur­ches were, when there was no Civill Power to defend them, but oppose them; but we can finde how many Heresies and Schismes they were then troubled with; shall the Church be in no better case under a Christian Civill Power, Nursing-Fathers, then at that time?

6 Doe the Classicall godly men looke upon their Congregations, having visible Saints among them, to be true visible Churches? so doe the Congregationall men judge them also. I gave instance be­fore.

7 Would then the Classical brethren, have their members (being such as have right to the Ordinance) to partake with Congregational Churches in the Lords Supper to shew their communion? certainly so they ought; but why Congegationall men doe refuse godly men, members of Classicall Churches, not admitting them to the Lords Supper, when they have desired it, is very strange to me; I wish our reverend Brethren would give us solid grounds for this practice, for it gives offence, and that justly. Preface to survey ch. dis. Mr. Hooker, and Iren. p. 266. Mr. Burroughs have both said they should be admitted: Shal a Church be acknow­ledged to be a true Church, where Doctrine and Worship is pure al­so, this person a member of it, a visible Saint (it may be a real Saint) and shall he be denyed communion?

8 For Classes, Pref. surv. ch. dis. the Congregationall men say Consociation of Chur­ches is not onely lawfull, but in some cases necessary. So Mr. Hooker. [Page 106]Mr. Cotton speakes fully to this, Keyes p. 54, 55. weighty mat­ters such as, Election and ordination of Elders, excommunication of an Elder, or any person of publike note, the translation of an Elder from one Church to another, it is an holy Ordinance to proceed with common consultation and consent. I suppose thus much might have beene obtained of the Classical-brethren, that though in cases of weight, as excommunication, they would not have such an Ordinance carried on by one Minister, but have the thing seriously examined first, and debated in a Classis, yet when the thing had beene concluded upon, they would leave the execution of the sentence to the officer, or officers of the Church, where the case lyeth. If so much might be ob­tained, I should be very farre from opposing a Classis, I would not willingly live without one.

I know of no other material point of difference, as for the first subject of the power of the Keyes, that is but a notion, though its true, much practise depends upon it, yet I finde not that our Divines here would have the fraternity to be the first subject, by their owning of Mr. Cotton his booke of the Keyes; for Mr. Cotton makes a Church organized to bee the first subject, and not the Fraternity, as is apparent in divers places of that booke.

The summe is, I wonder at our differnces, well might that worthy Divine say in his letter to me from New England, Its the wonderment of this side of the world, that you that are godly, and may agree, yet will not! surely the cause lyeth more in the Will, then any thing else. Give me leave therefore I pray, to make my humble request to our Reverend Divines, the Congregational-men, that they would please to close in with the Classical brethren, and not suffer these groundlesse differences to trouble the Chur­ches any longer. If you aske, Why doe you make your request to us, are we the cause why they are not bealed? I cannot thinke the cause lyes onely in the Ministers; nay I have heard long since there had been an agreement among the Ministers, had not some others that live by divisions, broken it; but whether all Mini­sters are of the same minde I know not: nay, I have observed the spirits of some Congregational-Ministers carried with more eagernesse against the Classical-brethren, then è converso, and I am sure, if there be any blame among the Ministers, it is charged most upon the Congregational-men, whether justly or no, it con­cernes [Page 107]you to cleare your selves: Besides, at this time the Civill power most smiles upon you, and now it is a good time to shew you seeke the peace and flourishing of all Churches, by joyn­ing with your fellow-brethren, and not to be content though your Interest be safe, unlesse the whole may have comfort as well as your selves; for you cannot but judge that there are more true visible Churches, then those which are called Inde­pendent Churches, and that there be others that are true Mi­nisters, besides the Independent Ministers; why then should not the comfort of these Churches and Ministers be sought? which cannot be, unlesse your selves be pleased to declare against these errours and schismes of the times, and fall in with these Mi­nisters to carry on the worke of Christ together. Let mee, I beseech you, present to your view a few things to be consi­dered.

First, the Classical men have bid very faire for peace and agree­ment with you; heare their words, Lond. in Vind. p. 120. 121. We doe here manifest our wil­lingnesse te accommodate with you according to the word in a way of union; and (such of us as are Ministers) to preach up and to practise a mutuall forbearance and toleration in all things, that may consist with the sunda­mentals of Religion [what need then any other Toleration?] with the power of godlinesse, and with that peace, which Christ hath established in his Church; but to make ruptures in the body of Christ, and to divide Church from Church, &c. there is no warrant for this out of the word. The page before this, they offer as much as this, and speake so Christianly and ingenuously, that it must needs move any Christian heart that loves the peace and prosperity of the Churches, to meet them halfe way, and not suffer any diffe­rences more to appeare.

As for that exception they make, the ruptures of Churches, I thinke it to be a very just exception; that golden rule hath place here, ut tibi, sic aliis, would any of us be content to have other Ministers take from us the best of our people that have chosen us before, and owned us for their officers? say what you please, you are men, and I know it would be a strong temptation, when as for want of these, also their hands are weakned in the car­rying on of Reformation in their Churches.

If you take away the best (who are the joy of a Minister) take away the worst also. If you live neare a place where there is no Minister, and take in such Christians to you as the place affords, [Page 108]and returne them when the place is furnished: or if there be a Minister, and but few Christians, so that he cannot give the Lords Supper with comfort, if he and his people will joyne with you they may, none oppose this; but when a godly Minister hath visible Saints sufficient in his Parish, to have these taken from him, is such a thing which I would not have offered to me, therefore I would not offer the same to another. I know where the pinch lyes, on the Ministers part, Our maintenance ari­seth from the members, &c. but for this the State hath provided an answer (and certainly it is a great mercy) reforme you in the place where you live, take none but Scriputre-visible-Saints to the Sacraments, catechize, and doe what you can to reforme the rest, the State hath provided for your maintenance, none shall keepe it from you, as well as the word gives it you, Gal. 6. Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things. Christ sent Paul not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1.17. preaching is the spending worke, and the chiefe, of this all the Parish are partakers, I am ready to dispense the Seales to all visible Saints, therefore I know no scruple why I should not receive from all, since all receive from me.

O but your members will not be content with this. I know not but your members may finde God in a godly reformed Classicall Church, we see the differences are very small; but suppose the worst, let then your members remove into the Parishes where you live, and this is no offence to any; if they say, It will something hinder their estate: Mr. Burroughs wil tel them then they love their bodies better then their soules, Expos. Hos. c. 2. v. 1.2. p. 225. if they looke upon things very much concerning their soul, and will not buy them with some abate­ment of their profit: could this have beene once enjoyed, New England sufferers had not been there now; Though Parishes are not Churches, yet Ministers care must be bounded some where. I presume you are willing to close, so that you may not sin.

I beseech you first, what sinne is it to let a godly Classicall man enjoy his owne members?

Secondly, What sinne is it to admit a visible Saint, and member of a Classical Church to communion with you?

Thirdly, what sinne is it to declare against the errours and schismes of the times? you see it is the thoughts of the New England Divines, that through our too much connivence at these, this inundation of errours is like to destroy all. If these [Page 109]three be but yeelded, I beleeve you may live and enjoy your liberty of conscience, and no man will trouble you.

2. A second consideration is this, you see those who call for agreement, they are no babes, they are men, holy, learned, excellently gifted, and the arguments they give for their Classical forme of government are not slight, but such as deserve strong heads to answer; it may be my shallownesse, but truly I cannot yet see some things they plead for to be clearly answered, as their arguments for the Catholick-Church-visible; their arguments for their Presbyterial Church, from the Church of Jerusalem, Corinth, &c. yet I have read the answers with a kinde of pre­judice against the Classical way, being before engaged in the Congregational-way, and usually then men are apt to make a little serve the turne: But I cannot yet be satisfied, and that such a Church as is in this small village where I live, should have equall power with the Church of Corinth, and be ex­empted from all other power, though (which God forbid) we should walke scandalously, is a peece of Divinity that I cannot yet beleeve. There seemes to be something in that which learned Mr. Hudson hinteth from 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keepe silence in the Churches. Here are Churches in Corinth, he doth not say, Let women, but Let your women (that indeed which is a rule for the Churches of Corinth, is a rule for all Churches) those Congregations are called Churches, yet one combined Church of Corinth.

There are other points besides which I mention not, but cer­tainly the controversie is not so clear as the controversie against Papists, Socinians, &c. therefore I should thinke that we had need close the more with these men.

A third consideration is this; unto me it is something, I know not how it takes with others, the strange things that God in his Providence hath suffered to fall out in Congregatio­nall Churches, I meane for Divisions especially, and errours; that charge cannot bee denied of many Congregationall Members what errours they have drunke in; and for Divisions, they are not secret things, but such as the whole Nation knows, insomuch that I have heard a serious Congregationall Mini­ster, and an able man say, when he hath heard what crackes, and rendings there have been in Congregationall Churches, he thought seriously whether it were the way of God or no; how [Page 110]many Congregationall Churches may be reckoned where these have been, and if Ministers doe not let their Members take their owne course, even what they will, and drinke in what errours they will, it is hard to keep a Church from ren­ding, Ius Divi. p. 114 that learned Book. England gives strong proofe of this. It is a very unhap­py Story that Mr. Edwards relates of the Church at Arnheim, if it be true, I finde it quoted by the London Ministers: where that Act was done in New England, that Mr. Cawdrey mentions in his Epistle to the dissenting Brethren, I cannot imagine; but that is also strange, if true; I suppose he relates as it was related to him, I know indeed where there is a sad example of this kinde there also. This use I make of these things, that we had need take another review of Congregationall principles, in respect of that power which is given to the Fraternity, and in the meane time to be very tender towards the Classicall Brethren, and study agreement with them.

The fourth, The Classicall men are opposed in reforming their Churches, as well as the Congregationall men; now for these to be opposed, not only by the prophane part, whom they keep off from the Lords Snpper, but to be opposed also by the Con­gregationall men, that they prove a griefe to them, this is a hard chapter; certainly we had need more close with them, and help to comfort them, rather then grieve them in their worke, they are scorned by the profane party, let not us scorne them.

5 These Nurseries of errours [I meane the Separatists, who cast off Orthodox Officers] are as bad enemies to the Congrega­tionall Churches, as they are to the Classicall; nay worser, your Members will quickly drinke in their poyson, yea, and goe a­way from you to them, Pag. 119. as experience hath testified; therefore it concernes you to joyne with the Classicall men against them; but by one passage I meet with in the London Vindication, it seems some Congregationall men doe not thinke so, for they in their complaint to you thus speake; Are there not some of you that chuse rather to joyne with Anabaptists, and Episcopall men then with us? and that will give letters dimissory to your Members, to depart from you to the Churches of the Anabaptists? and at the same time deny them to such as desire them, for to joyne with Churches of our Communion? we charge not these things upon you all, but upon some, whose names we forbeare to men­tion; this is very strange, but this confirmes what I said be­fore, that the cause of our dis-union is not altogether in the Classicall men.

6 I pray consider what a fine Game the Devill hath played by this opposition between us, hath he not turned our Refor­mation into a deformation? Hath he not caused the building of the Temple to cease? Doe not all things that concerne the Reformation of the Church stand at a stay? What doe we now? indeed those who are for Congregationall Government, have the opportunity to gather Churches [as they call it] but what becomes of the whole? It was told me when I was in Spaine, [which was the winter before Naseby Fight] that divers that were in religious Orders that lived there, were got into England; Certainly Jesuits, or Devils have been here to hold the Congre­gationall, and Classicall Brethren at such a distance, that while they have been contending about Government, we are in dan­ger of loosing Ordinances, Truths, Government, and be swal­lowed up with a deluge of Errors, Schismes, and Heresies; Di­vide & impera, that hath been Satans project.

7 I beseech you consider, whether we lye not open to Gods stroke: is there not matter of provocation given him, by reason of these Divisions (that his worke stands at a stay) Errours, Schismes, Heresies, and decay of godlinesse that follows upon these, that he should take away the Liberties he hath given us, and make us feele a heavie yoke againe? Surely these things will not be long borne. Mr. Caryll hath a sad speech, Expos. on Job, c. 5. ver. 9. God hath begun to doe so many marvells amongst us, that I verily beleeve the worke he is about, will end in a marvell too; and we in the close shall be made ei­ther a wonder of Mercy, or a wonder of Judgement to all the Nations round about.

We are made indeed a wonder in regard of the strange Opini­ons, Heresies, Divisions, they wonder at us in New England; but till God sets up his Kingdome in our hearts, Rom. 14.17. consisting in righ­teousnesse, peace, and joyes of the Holy Ghost, and sets up his King­dome in the Nation, riding in triumph in his Ordinances, con­verting of soules, and battering down the prophanenesse of our hearts, scattering our Errors and Schismes, we shall not be a wonder of mercy to other Nations; but if God shall be pleased to let our hearts feele his inward Kingdome, and our eyes see his externall visible Kingdome after that manner exalted, then Lord, some of us care not how soone we fall asleep.