[Page] A DEFENCE Of Mr. JOHN COTTON From the imputation of SELFE CONTRADICTION, charged on him by Mr. DAN: CAVVDREY Written by himselfe not long before his death. Whereunto is prefixed, an Answer to a late Treatise of the said Mr. CAVVDREY about the nature of SCHISME. BY JOHN OWEN: D: D:

Tit. 1. 7.

OXFORD, Printed by H: HALL; for T. ROBINSON. 1658.

[Page 3]

I have not much to say un­to thee, concerning the insuing Treatise; it will speake for it selfe with all impartiall men; much lesse shall I insist on the commendation of it's Authour, who also being dead [...]; and will be so I am perswaded, whilest Christ hath a Church upon the Earth; The Treatise it selfe was written sun­dry yeeres agoe, immediately upon the publishing of Mr Cawdryes Accusation against him; I shall not need to give an account whence it hath been, that it saw the light no sooner; it may suffice, that in mine own behalfe and of others, I doe acknowledge that in the doing of sundry things seeming of more importance, this [Page 4] ought not to have been omitted; The judgment of the Authour approving of this vindication of himselfe as necessary, considering the place he held in the Church of God, should have been a rule unto us, for the performance of that duty, which is owing to his worth and piety, in doing and suffering for the Truth of God. It is now about 7 months agoe, since it came into my hands; and since I ingaged my selfe into the publication of it, my not immediate proceeding therein, being sharply re­buked by a fresh charge upon my selfe from that hand, under which this wor­thy Person so farre suffered, as to be ne­cessitated to the ensuing defensative, I have here discharged that ingagement. The Author of the charge against him, in his Epistle to that against me, tel's his Reader, that it is thought that it was intended by another (and now promised by my selfe) to be published to cast a Slurre upon him; so are our intentions judged, so our wayes, by thoughts and reports; Why a Vindication of Mr Cotton should [Page 5] cast a slurre upon Mr Cawdry I know not; Is he concern'd in Spirit or Reputation in the Acquitment of an holy, reverend Person now at rest with Christ, from imputations of inconstancie and selfe con­tradiction? Is there not roome enough in the world, to beare the good names of Mr Cotton and Mr Cawdry? but that if one be vindicated the other must be slur­red? He shall find now by experience, what assistance he found from him who loved him, to beare his charge, and to repell it, without any such reflection on his Accuser, as might savour of an intention to slurre him; mala mens, ma­lus animus; the measure that men feare from others, they have commonly me­ted out unto them before hand; He wishes those that intend to rake in the ashes of the dead, to consider whether they shall deserve any thankes for their labour. How the covering of the dead with their own comely garments, comes to be a raking into their ashes, I know not; His name is alive, though he be dead; It was that, not his person, that was at­tempted [Page 6] to be wounded, by the charge against him; to powre forth that balme for it's healing, now he is dead, which himselfe provided whilest he was alive, without adding or diminishing one syl­lable, is no rakeing into his ashes; and I hope the [...] of the Reve­rend Authour, will not allow him to be offended, that this friendly office is per­formed to a dead Brother; to publish this his defence of his own innocency, writ­ten in obedience to a prime dictate of the law of Nature, against the wrong which was not done him in secret.

But the intendment of this prefatory discourse, being my own concernment, in reference to a late tract of Mr Caw­dries, bearing in it's Title and Super­scription, a vindication from my unjust clamours and false aspersions; I shall not detaine the Reader with any farther dis­course of that, which he will find fully debated in the insuing Treatise it selfe; but immediately addresse my selfe to that, which is my present peculiar de­signe; By what wayes and meanes the [Page 7] difference betwixt us is come to that issue wherein now it stands stated, in the expressions before mentioned, I shall not need to repeat. Who first let out those waters of strife, who hath filled their streames with bitternesse, clamour & false aspersions, is left to the judgment of all, that feare the Lord, who shall have occasion at any time to reflect upon those discourses; How ever it is come to passe, I must acknowledge that the state of the Controversy betweene us is now degene­rated into such an uselesse strife of words, as that I dare publickly owne engage­mēts into studies of so much more impor­tance unto the interest of truth, Piety, and literature, as that I cannot with peace in my own retirements, be much farther conversant therein. Only where­as I am not in the least convinced, that Mr Cawdry hath given satisfaction to my former Expostulations, about the in­juries done me in his other Treatise, and hath evidently added to the number and weight of them in this, I could not but lay hold of this opportunity given, by my [Page 8] discharging a former promise, once more to remind him of some miscarriages, excee­dingly unbecomeing his profession and calling; which I shall doe in a briefe re­view of his Epistle and Treatise. Upon the consideration whereof, without char­ging him or his way with schisme, in great letters on the Title-page of this book, I doubt not but it will appear, that the guilt of the crime he falsly, unjustly, & uncharitably chargeth upon others, may be laid more equitably at his own door; and that the shortnesse of the covering to hide themselves, used by him and others from the inquisition made after them for schisme, upon their own principles, will not be supplyed by such outcryes as those he is pleased to use after them, who are least of all men concerned in the mat­ter under contest, there being no so­lid medium, whereby they may be im­pleaded. And in this discourse, I shall, as I suppose, put an end to my engage­ment in this controversy; I know no man whose patience will inable him to a­bide alwayes in the consideration of [Page 9] things to so little purpose; were it not that men beare themselves on high by resting on the partiall adherence of ma­ny to their dictates, it were impossible they should reape any contentment in their retirements from such a manage­ment of Controversies as this; Inde­pendency is a great schisme, it hath made all the divisions amongst us, Brow­nists, Anabaptists, and all sectaries are Independents; they deny our Ministers and Churches, they seperate from us, all errors come from among them, this I have been told, and that I have heard, is the summe of this Treatise; who they are of whom he speakes, how they came into such a possession of all Church state in England, that all that are not with them are Schismatickes; how de jure, or de facto, they came to be so instated; what claime they can make to their present stations, without schisme, on their own principles; whe­ther granting the Church of England as constituted when they and we begun that, which we call Reformation, to [Page 10] have been a True instituted Church they have any Power of rule in it, but what hath been got by violence; what, that is purely theirs, hath any pretence of establishment, from the scripture, an­tiquity, and the lawes of this land? I say with these and the like things, which are incumbent on him to cleare up, be­fore his Charges with us will be of any value, our Authour troubleth not him­selfe. But to proceed to the particulars by him insisted on.

1. He tels the Reader in his Epistle, that his unwillingnesse to this rejoinder was heightned by the Necessity he found, of discovering some personall weaknesses and forgetfulnesses in me, upon my deny all of some things which were known to be true, if he should proceed therin; for what he intimates of the unpleasantnesse that it is to him, to discover things of that importance in me, when he professeth his designe to be to impaire my Authori­ty, so far that the cause I own may receive no countenance thereby; I leave it to him, who will one day reveale the secrets of all [Page 11] hearts, which at present are open and naked unto him; but how I pray are the things by me denyed known to be true? seeing it was unpleasant and distastfull to him to insist upon them, men might ex­pect that his Evidence of them, was not only open, cleare, undenyable, and ma­nifest as to it's truth, but cogent as to their publication; The whole insisted on is, if there be any truth in reports; hic nigrae succus loliginis, haec est aerugo mera; Is this a bottome for a Minister of the Gospel to proceed upon, to such charges as those insinuated; is not the course of Nature set on fire at this day, by reports? is a­ny thing more contrary to the royall law of charity, than to take up reports as the ground of charges and accusations? Is there any thing more unbecoming a man, laying aside all considerations of chri­stianity, than to suffer his judgment to be tainted, much more his words, and publick expressions in charging, & accu­sing others to be regulated by reports? and whereas we are commanded to speak evill of no man, may we not on this [Page 12] ground, speak evill of all men, and ju­stify our selves by saying it is so, if re­ports be true? the Prophet tel's us, that a combination for his defaming and re­proach was managed among his Adver­saries, Jer. 20. 10. I have heard the de­faming of many, feare on every side, re­port say they, and we will report it; if they can have any to goe before them in the Transgression of that Law, which he who knowes how the tongues of men are set on fire of Hell, gave out to lay a restraint upon them, thou shalt not raise a false report, Exod. 23. 1. They will second it, and spread it abroad to the ut­most, for his disadvantage and trouble; Whether this procedure of our Reve­rend Authour, come not up to the pra­ctice of their designe, I leave to his own conscience to judge. Should men suffer their Spirits to be heightned by provo­cations of this nature, unto a recharge from the same offensive dunghill of re­ports, what monsters should we speedily be transformed unto? but this being far frō being the only place wherein appeale [Page 13] is made to reports and hearesayes by our Authour, I shall have occasion in the consideration of the severals of them, to reassume this discourse. For what he addes about the space of time wherein my former reply was drawn up, because I know not whether he had heard any re­port insinuated to the contrary to what I affirmed, I shall not trouble him with giving evidence thereunto: but on­ly adde that here he hath the product of halfe that time, which I now interpose upon the review of my transcribed pa­pers: Only whereas it is said that Mc Cawdry is an antient man; I cannot but wonder he should be so easy of beliefe; Arist. Rhetor. lib. 2. c. 18. tel's us, [...], and not apt to believe; whence on all occasions of dis­course [...]; but he believes all that comes to hand with an easy Faith, which he hath totally in his own power, to dispose of at pleasure. That I was in passion when I wrote my review is his judgment; but this is but man's day; we are in expectation of [Page 14] that, wherein the world shall be judged in righteousnesse; it is to possible that my spirit was not in that frame in all things, wherein it ought to have been; but that the Reverend Authour knowes not; I have nothing to say to this, but that of the Philosopher— [...], Epic. Cap. 48. Much I confesse, was not spoken by me (which he afterwards insisteth on) to the Argumentative part of his booke, which as in an answer I was not to looke for, so to find, had been a difficult taske. As he hath nothing to say, unto the differences among them­selves both in judgment and practice, soe how little there is, in his recrimination of the differences among us, as that one and the same man differeth from himselfe, which charge he casts upon Mr Cotton and my selfe, will speedily be manifested to all impartiall men. For the Treatise it selfe whose consideration I now pro­ceed unto, that I may reduce what I have to say unto it, unto the bounds intended [Page 15] in confining my defensative unto this Preface to the treatise of another, I shall referre it unto certaine Heads, that will be comprehensive of the whole, and give the Reader a cleare and distinct view thereof.

I shall begin with that which is least handled in the two bookes of this Reve­rend Author, though the summe of what was pleaded by me in my Treatise of Schisme. For the discovery of the true na­ture of Schisme, and the vindication of them who were falsly charged with the crime thereof, I layd downe two Prin­ciples as the foundation of all that I As­serted in the whole cause insisted on; which may briefly be reduced to these two Syllogismes.

1. If in all and every place of the new Testament where there is mention made of Schisme, name, or thing, in an Eccle­siasticall sence; there is nothing intended by it, but a divisiō in a particular Church; then that is the proper Scripture no­tion of Schisme in the Ecclesiasticall sence; but in all and every place &c: ergo, [Page 16] The Proposition being cleare and evident in it's own light, the Assumption was con­firmed in my Treatise, by an induction of the severall instances that might any way seeme to belong unto it.

My second principle was raised upon a concession of the generall nature of Schisme restrained with one necessary li­mitation and amounts unto this Argu­ment.

If Schisme in an Ecclesiasticall sense, be the breach of an Union of Christ's in­stitution, then they who are not guilty of the breach of any union of Christ's In­stitution, are not guilty of Schisme; but so is Schisme, Ergò,

The Proposition also of this Syllogisme with it's inference being unquestionable, for the confirmation of the Assumption I considered the nature of all Church U­nion as instituted by Christ, and pleaded the innocency of those whose defence in several degrees I had undertaken, by their freedome from the breach of any Church Union. Not finding the Reverend Au­thour in his first answer to speake clearely [Page 17] and distinctly to either of those princi­ples, but to proceed in a course of perpe­tual diversion, from the thing in question, with reflections, charges &c: All rather I hope out of an unacquaintednesse with the true nature of argumentation, than any perversenesse of spirit, in cavilling at what he found he could not answer; I earnestly desired him in my review that we might have a faire and friendly mee­ting, personally to debate these princi­ples which he had undertaken to oppose, and so to prevent trouble to our selves and others, in writing and reading things remote from the merit of the cause un­der agitation; what returnes I have had hereto, the Reader is now acquainted withall, from his rejoinder, the particu­lars where of shall be farther enquired in­to afterward.

The other parts of his two bookes consist in his charges upon me, about my Judgment in sundry particulars, not relating, in the least that I can as yet un­derstand, unto the Controversy in hand; As to his excursions, about Brownists, [Page 18] Anabaptists Seekers; rending the peace of their Churches, seperating from them, the errours of the Seperatists, and the like, I cannot apprehend my selfe concerned to take notice of them; to the other things an Answer shall be returned, and a defence made, so farre as I can judge it necessary. It may be our Author seekes a Releife from the Charge of Schisme that lyes upon him and his party (as they are called) from others, by mannaging the same charge against them, who he thinkes will not returne it upon them: but for my part, I shall assure him that were he not in my judgment more ac­acquitted upon my principles than upon his owne, I should be necessitated to stand upon even termes with him herein; but to have advantages from want of charity, as the Donatists had against the Catholickes, is no Argument of a Good cause.

In the first Chapter there occurs not any thing of reall difference as to the cause under agitation, that should re­quire a review, being spent wholy in [Page 19] things [...]. And therefore I shall briefly animadvert on what seemes of most concernment therein, in the manner of his procedure. His former discourse, and this also consisting much of my words perverted by adding in the close something that might wrest them to his owne purpose, he tels me in the beginning of his third Chapter, that this is to turne my testimony against my selfe, which is, as he saith, and allow­ed way of the clearest victory, which it seemes he aimeth at; but nothing can be more remote from being defended with that pretence than this his way of pro­ceeding. 'Tis not of urging a Testimo­ny from me, against me, that I complai­ned, but the perverting of my words, by either heading, or closeing of them with his owne, quite to other purposes than those of their owne intendment: a way whereby any man may make other mens words to speake what he pleaseth; as Mr Biddle hy his leading questions, and knitting of Scriptures to his expressions in them, makes an appearance of con­straining [Page 20] the word of God to speake out all his Socinian blasphemies.

In this course he still continues; and his very entrance gives us a pledge of what we are to expect in the processe of his management of the present busi­nesse; whereas I had said, that consi­dering the various interests of parties at difference, there is no great successe to be promised by the management of Contro­versies, though with never so much e­vidence and conviction of truth; to the repetition of my words he subjoines the instance of Sectaries, not restrained by the clearest demonstration of truth; not weighing how facile a taske it is, to sup­ply Presbyterians in their room; which in his account is, it seemes, to turne his testi­mony against himselfe, & as he somewhere phraseth it, to turne the point of his sword into his owne bowels; but, nobis non licet esse tam disertis; neither do we here, ei­ther learne or teach any such way of dis­putation.

His following leaves are spent for the most part in slighting the Notion of [Page 21] Schisme by me insisted on, and in repor­ting my arguments for it (p. 8, 9, 12.) in such a way and manner, as argues that he either never understood them, or is willing to pervert them. The true na­ture and importance of them I have be­fore laid downe, and shall not now a­gaine repeat: Though I shall adde that his frequent repetition of his disproving that principle, which it appeares, that he never yet contended with all, in its Full strength, brings but little advan­tage to his cause, with persons whose interest doth not compell them to take up things on trust. How well he cleares himselfe from the charge of reviling and useing opprobrious reproachful termes, al­though he professe himselfe to have been astonished at the charge, may be seen in his justification of himselfe therein. pag. 16, 17, 18, 19. with his reinforceing e­very particular expression instanced in; and yet he tels me, for inferring that he discovered sanguinary thoughts in refe­rence unto them whose removall from their native soyle into the wildernesse, he [Page 22] affirmes, England's happinesse would have consisted in, that he hath much a­doe to forbeare once more to say the Lord rebuke thee: for my part, I have recei­ved such a satisfactory tast of his spirit and way, that as I shall not from hence­forth desire him to keep in any thing, that he can hardly forbeare to let out, but rather to use his utmost liberty; so I must assure him that I am very little con­cerned, or not at all, in what he shall be pleased to say, or to forbeare for the time to come; himselfe hath freed me of that concernment.

The first particular of value insisted on, is his charge upon me for the deniall of all the Churches of England to be true Chur­ches of Christ, except the Churches ga­thered, in a Congregationall way: Ha­ving frequently and without hesitation charged this opinion upon me in his first answer, knowing it to be very false, I expostulated with him about it in my Reveiw. Insteed of accepting the sa­tisfaction tendered in my expresse deni­all of any such thought or perswasion, or tendering any satisfaction as to the wrong [Page 23] done me, he seekes to justify himselfe in his charge, and so persisteth therein. The Reasons he gives of his so doing are not unworthy a little to be remarked.

The first is this; He supposed me to be an Independent, and therefore made that charge; the consequent of which sup­position is much to weake, to justify this Reverend Authour in his Accusati­on; doth he suppose that he may with­out offence, lay what he please to the charge of an Independent? but he saith secondly, that he tooke the word Inde­pendent, generally, as comprehending Brow­nists, & Anabaptists, and other Sectaries: But herein also he doth but delude his owne conscience, seeing he personally speakes to me and to my designe in that booke of Schisme, which he undertook to confute; which also removes his third intimation, that he formerly in­tended any kind of Independency, &c: the rest that follow are of the same nature, and however compounded will not make a salve to heale the wound made in his reputation by his own weapon; for the [Page 24] learned Author, called vox populi, which he is pleased here to urge? I first que­stion whither he be willing to be pro­duced to maintaine this Charge; and if he shall appeare; I must needs tell him, (what he here questions whether it be so, or no) that he is a very lyar. For any principles in my Treatise, whence a denyall of their Ministers and Churches may be regularly deduced, let him pro­duce them if he can; and if not, acknow­ledge that there had been a more Chri­stian and ingenious way of coming off an ingagement into that charge, then that by him chosen to be insisted on; animos & ir am ex crimine sumunt. And againe we have vox populi cited on the like oc­casion, pag. 34; about my refusall to answer whither I were a Minister or not; which as the thing it selfe of such a refu­sal of mine on any occasion in the world, (because it must be spoken) is purum putum mendacium, so it is no truer, that, that was vox populi at Oxford which is pretended; that which is vox populi, must be publicke: publicum was once [Page 25] populicum; now setting aside the whispers, of it may be two or three Ardelio's, no­torious triflers, whose lavish imperti­nency, will deliver any man from the danger of being slandered by their tongues, and there will be little gound left for the report, that is fathered on vox populi: And I tell him here once a­gaine (which is a sufficient answer in­deed to his whole first Chapter) that I doe not deny Presbyterian Churches to be true Churches of Jesus Christ, nor the ministers of them to be true mini­sters, nor doe maintaine a nullity in their Ordination as to what is the proper use and end of Ordination, (take­ing it in the sense, wherin by Vid. Gerard. loc. Com. de Minist. Ec­clesiast. Sect. 11. 12. them it is taken,) though I think it neither administred by them in due order, nor to have in it selfe that force and efficacy, singly conside­red, which by many of them is ascribed unto it. Thus much of my judgment I have publiquely declared long agoe, and I thought I might have expected from persons Professing Christianity, [Page 26] that they would not voluntarily engage themselves into an opposition against me, and waveing my judgment which I had constantly published and preached, have gathered up reports from private and table discourses, most of them false and untrue, all of them uncertaine, the occasions and coherences of those dis­courses from whence they have been raised and taken, being utterly lost, or at present by him wholly omitted. His following excursions about a successive ordination from Rome, wherein he runnes crosse to the most eminent lights of all the Reformed Churches, and their de­clared Judgments, with practise in reordaining those who come unto them with that Romane stampe upon them, I shall not further interest my selfe in, nor think my selfe concerned so to doe, un­till I see a satisfactory answer given un­to Beza and others in this very point; and yet I must here againe professe, that I cannot understand that distinction of deriveing ordination from the Church of Rome, but not from the Roman Church. Let him but seriously peruse these ensu­ing [Page 27] words of Beza, and tell me whither he have any ground of a particular quar­rell against me upon this account.

Sed praeterea quaenam ista est quaeso or­dinaria vocatio, quam eos habuisse dicis, quos Deus paucis quibusdam except is, excitavit? Certe papistica. Nam haec tua verba sunt; Hodie si episcopi Galli­canarum ecclesiarum se & suas ecclesi­as à tyrannide Episcopi Romani vin­dicare velint, & eas ab omni idolola­tria & superstitione repurgare, non habent opus alia vocatione ab ea quam ha­bent. Quid ergo? Papisticas ordinatio­nes, in quibus neque morum examen prae­cessit, neque leges ullae servatae sunt in­violabiliter ex divino jure in electioni­bus & ordinationibus praescriptae, in qui­bus puri etiam omnes canones impuden­tissime violati sunt: quae nihil aliud sunt, quam foedissima Romani prostibulin undi­natio, quavis meretricum mercede, quam Deus templo suo inferri prohibuit, inquinatior: quibus denique alii non ad praedicandum sed pervertendum evange­lium: alii non ad docendum, sed adrursus sa­crificandum, & ad abominandum [...] [Page 28] sunt ordinati, usque adeo firmas tecum esse censebimus, ut quoties tali cui­piam pseudoepiscopo, Deus concesserit ad verum Christianismum transire omnis illa istiusmodi ordinationis impuritas si­mul expurgata censeatur? Imo quia sic animum per Dei gratiam mutavit, quo ore, quo pudore, qua conscientia papis­mum quidem detestabitur, suam autem inordinatissimam ordinationem non eju­rabit? aut si, ejuret, quomodo ex illius jure auctoritatem dicendi habebit. Nec tamen nego quin tales, si probe doctri­nam veram tenere, si honest is moribus prae­diti, si ad gregem pascendum apti com­periantur, ex pseudoepiscopis novi pasto­res, legitime designentur; Thus he; who was thought then to speake the sense of the Churches of Geneva and France; in his book against Saravia about the di­verse orders of Ministers in the Church:

His plea for the Church-Authority of the Pope, notwithstanding his being an Idolater, a murderer, theman of sinne an adversary of Christ; because a Civill magistrate doth not by any morall Crime [Page 29] or those whereof the Pope is guilty, loose his jurisdiction and Authority, consi­dering the different principles, grounds, ends, laws, Rules, priviledges of the Authority of the one, and the other, and the severall tenures, whereby the one doth hold, and the other pre­tends to hold his power, is brought in to serve the turne in hand, and may be easily layd aside?

And when he shall manifest, that there is appointed by Christ, one single High-Preist or Prelate in the house of God the whole Church; and that office to be confined to one nation, one blood, one family, propagated by naturall ge­neration, without any provision of re­liefe by any other way, person or fami­ly in case of miscarriage; and when he shall have proved that such an officer as the Pope of Rome, in any one particular that constituteth him such an officer, was once instituted by Christ, I shall farther attend unto his Reason for his Autho­rity from that of the High-Priests among the Jewes, which was not lost as to it's [Page 30] continuance in the family of Aaron not­withstanding the miscarriage of some in­dividuall Person vested therewithall; In the close of the Chapter he reassumes his charge of my renouncing my owne Or­dination which with great confidence, and without the least scruple, he had asserted in his Answer; of that assersion he now pretends to give the Reasons, whereof the first is this.

1. The world lookes on him as an In­dependent of the highest note; therefore he hath renounced his ordination; and therefore I dare to say so. So much for that reason. I understand neither the Logick nor morality of this first Rea­son.

2. He knowes from good hands that some of the Brethren have renounced their Ordination; therefore he durst say posi­tively that I have renounced mine. Prov. 12. 18.

3. He hath heard that I disswaded o­thers from their ordination, and there­fore he durst say I renownced my owne; and yet I suppose he may possibly dis­swade [Page 31] some from Episcopall Ordination: but I know it not, no more than he knowes what he affirmes of me which is false.

4. He concludes from the principles in my book of Schisme; because I said that to insist upon a succession of ordination from Anti-Christ and the Beast of Rome would if I mistake not keep up in this par­ticular what God would have pulled down, therefore I renounced my ordination; when he knowes that I avowed the vali­dity of ordination on another account.

5. If all this will not doe,, he tels me of something that was said at a publique meeting (at dinner it seemes) with the Canons of Chhist-Church, viz: that I vallued not my ordination by the Bishop of Oxford any more than a crum upon my trencher; which words whether ever they were spoken or no, or to what purpose, or in reference to what Ordination, (I meane of the two orders) or in what sense, or with what limitation, or as part of what discourse, or in comparison of what else, or whither solely in reffe­rence [Page 32] to the Roman succession, in which sense I will have nothing to doe with it, I know not at all; nor will con­cerne my selfe to enquire; being great­ly ashamed to find men professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, so farre for­getfull of all common Rules of civility and principles of humane society, as to insist upon such vaine groundlesse reports as the Foundations of accusations against their Brethren! nor doe I believe that any one of the Reverend Persons quoted will owne this information; although I shall not concerne my selfe to make en­quiry into their memories concerning a­ny such passage or discourse.

Much reliefe for the future against these and the like mistakes may be affor­ded from an easy observation of the different senses wherein the terme of Or­dination is often used; it is one thing when it is taken largely for the whole appointment of a man to the ministry; in which sense I desire our Authour to consider what is written by Beza among Reformed, and Gerhard among the Lu­theran [Page 33] Divines; to omit innumerable o­thers; another thing when taken for the imposition of hand, whither by Bishops or Presbyters; concerning which single Act, both as to its order, & efficacy, I have sufficiently delivered my judgment, if he be pleased to take notice of it. I feare in­deed that when men speak of an ordain­ed ministry; which in its true and pro­per sense I shall with them contend for, they often relate only to that solemnity, restraining the authoritative making of ministers singly thereunto; contrary to the intention and meaning of that ex­pression, in Scripture, antiquity, and the best reformed Divines, both Cal­vinists, and Lutherans; and yet it is not imaginable how some men prevaile by the noise and sound of that Word, upon the prejudiced minds of partiall unstu­died men. A litle time may farther ma­nifest, if it be not sufficiently done al­ready; that another account is given of this matter, by Clemens, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Justin Martyr, and generally all the first writers of Christi­ans; [Page 34] besides the Counsels of old & late, with innumerable Protestant Authors of the best note to the same purpose.

This I say is the ground of this mi­stake; whereas sundry things concurre to the calling of Ministers, as it belongs to the Church of God, the ground and pillar of truth, the spouse of Christ, Psal. 45. and mother of the family, or she that tarryeth at home, Psal. 68. unto whom all ministers are stewards, 1 Cor. 4. 1. e­ven in that house of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. and sundry qualifications are indispen­sably previously required in the persons to be called; overlooking the necessity of the qualifications required, and omit­ting the duty and authority of the Church, Acts 1. 15. Acts 6. 2. 13. 2. 14. 22. the Act of them who are not the whole Church, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. but only a part of it, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 2 Cor. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 5. 3. as to ministry, consisting in the approbation and solemne confirma­tion, of what is supposed to go before, hath in some mens language, gotten the name of ordination, and an interpreta­tion [Page 35] of that name to such an extent, as to enwrap in it, all that is indispensably necessary to the constitution or making of ministers; so that where that is ob­tained, in what order soever, or by whom soever administred, who have first obtained it themselves, there is a lawfull and sufficient calling to the mi­nistry. Indeed, I know no errour, a­bout the institutions of Christ, atten­ded with more pernitious consequences to the Church of God, then this; should it be practised, according to the force of the principle its selfe. Suppose six, eight, or ten men, who have themselves been formerly ordained; but now per­haps, not by any ecclesiasticall censure, but by an act of the civill magistrate, are put out of their places, for notorious ignorance and scandall; should concurre and ordaine an hundred ignorant and wicked persons like themselves, to be ministers: must they not on this Princi­ple be all accounted ministers of Christ, and to be invested with all ministeriall power; and so be enabled to propagate [Page 36] their kind to the end of the world; and indeed why should not this be granted, seeing the whole bulke of the papall or­dination is contended for as valid; where­as it is notoriously knowne, that sundry Bishops among them (who perhaps re­ceived their own ordination as the reward of a whore) being persons of vitious lives, and utterly ignorant of the Gospell, did sustaine their pompe and sloth, by sel­ling holy orders as they called them, to the scum and refuse of men; but of these things, more in their proper place.

Take then Reader, the substance of this chapter; in this briefe recapitulati­on.

1. He denies our Churches to be true Churches, and our Ministers true Mini­sters.

2. He hath renounced his owne ordi­nation.

3. When some young men came to ad­vise about their ordination he diswaded them from it.

4. He saith he would maintaine a­gainst [Page 37] all the Ministers of England, there was in Scripture no such thing as Ordina­tion.

5. That when he was chosen a Par­liament man he would not answer whe­ther he was a Minister or not; all which are notoriously untrue, and some of them, namely the two last, so remote from any thing to give a pretence or colour unto them, that I question whether Satan have impudence enough to owne him­selfe their Author; and yet from heare­sayes, reports, rumours, from table talk, Vox populi, and such other grounds of Rea­soning this Reverend Author hath made them his owne, and by such a charge, hath I presume, in the judgment of all unpre­judiced men, discharged me from further attending to what he shall be prompted from the like principles to divulge, for the same end and purposes, which hi­therto he hath managed, for the future. For my judgment about their ministry, and Ordination, about the nature and efficacy of Ordination, the state and power of particular Churches, my owne [Page 38] station in the ministry, which I shall at all times through the grace and assistance of our Lord Jesus Christ, freely justi­fy against men and devills, it is so well knowne, that I shall not need here fur­ther to declare it: for the true nature and notion of Schisme, alone by me enqui­red after, in this chapter, as I said, I find nothing offerd thereunto: only whereas I restrained the Ecclesiasticall use of the word Schisme to the sense wherein it is used, in the places of Scripture, that mention it with relation to Church af­faires, which that it ought not to be so, nothing but asseverations to the contra­ry are produced to evince; this is inter­preted, to extend to all that I would allow as to the nature of Schisme it selfe, which is most false; though I said if I would proceed no farther, I might not be compelled so to do, seeing in things of this nature we may crave allowance to think and speak with the Holy Ghost: However, I expressely comprised in my proposition all the places wherein the nature of Schisme is delivered under [Page 39] what termes or words soever. When then I shall be convinced, that such dis­courses as those of this Treatise, made up of diversions into things wholy for­raigne to the inquiry by me insisted on, in the investigation of the true notion and nature of Schisme, with long talkes a­bout Anabaptists, Brownists, Sectaries, Independents, Presbyterians, Ordinati­on, with charges and reflections ground­ed on this presumption, that this Au­thor and his party, (for we will no more contend about that expression) are in solidum possessed of all true and order­ly Church state in England, so that who­soever are not of them, are Schismaticks, and I know not what besides, he being ‘—Gallinae filius albae’ nos viles pulli nati infelicibus ovis; I shall farther attend unto them. I must far­ther adde that I was not so happy as to foresee that because I granted the Ro­man Party before the Reformation to have made outwardly a profession of the Religion of Christ, although I expres­sed them to be really a party combined [Page 40] together, for all ends of wickednesse, and in particular for the extirpation of the true Church of Christ in the world, ha­ving no state of union but what the Ho­ly Ghost calls Babilon in opposition to Syon, our Reverend Author would con­clude as he doth pag. 34. that I allowed them to be a true Church of Christ; but it is impossible for wiser men then I, to see farre into the issue of such dis­courses; and therefore we must take in good part what doth fall out; and if the Reverend Author, insteed of having his zeale warmed against me, would a little bestirre his abilities, to make out to the understandings and consciences of un­interested men, that All ecclesiasticall power being vested in the Pope and Coun­cills, by the consent of that whole com­bination of men called the Church of Rome, and flowing from the Pope in its execution to all others; who in the de­rivation of it from him, owned him as the immediate fountaine of it, which they sware to maintaine in him, and this in opposition to all Church power in a­ny [Page 41] other persons whatsoever; it was possible that any power should be derived from that combination, but what came expressely from the foun­taine mentioned. I desire our Author would consider the frame of spirit that was in this matter, in them, who first laboured in the worke of Reformation, and to that end peruse the stories of Lasitius, and Regenuolscius about the Churches of Bohemia, Poland, and those parts of the world, especially the latter from pag. 29. 30. and forward. And as to the distinction used by some, be­tween the Papacy, and the Church of Rome, which our Author makes use of to another purpose, then those did, who first invented it, (extending it only to the consideration of the possibility of salvation for individuall persons living in that communion before the Refor­mation) I hope he will not be angry if I professe my disability to understand it. All men cannot be wise alike; if the Papacy comprise the Pope, and all Papall Jurisdiction and power, with the [Page 42] subjection of men thereunto, if it de­note all the Idolatries, false worship, and heresies of that society of men; I do know that all those are confirmed by Church Acts of that Church: and that in the Church Publick sense of that Church, no man was a member of it but by virtue of the union that consisted in that Pa­pacy, it being placed alwaies by them in all their definitions of their Church; as also hat there was neither Church Or­der, nor Church Power, nor Church Act, nor Church confession, nor Church Worship amongst them, but what consi­sted in that Papacy.

Now because nothing doth more fre­quently, occurre then the objection of the difficulty in placing the dispensation of baptisme on a sure foot account, in case of the rejection of all authoritative influence from Rome into the ministry of the Reformed Churches, with the insinuation of a supposition of the non­baptization of all sutch, as derive not a title unto it, by that meanes, they who do so being supposed to stand upon an [Page 43] unquestionable foundation, I shall a lit­tle examine the grounds of their secu­rity, and then compare them with what they have to plead, who refuse to ac­knowledg the deriving any sap or noushri­ment from that rotten corrupt stock.

It is I suppose, taken for granted, that an unbaptized person can never effectu­ally baptize, let him receive what other qualifications soever that are to be su­peradded, or necessary thereunto. If this be not supposed the whole weight of the objection improved by the worst supposition that can be made, falls to the ground. I shall also desire in the next place, that as we cannot make the Popish baptisme, better then it is, so that we would not plead it to be better, or any other, then they professe it to be; nor pretend, that though it be rotten or null in the foundation, yet by continuance and time it might obtaine validity and strength. When the claime is by suc­cession from such a stock or root, if you suppose once a totall intercision in the succession from that stock or root, there [Page 44] is an utter end put to that claime; let us now consider how the case is with them from whom this claime is derived.

1. It is notoriously knowne, that amongst them the validity of the sacra­ments depends upon the intention of the Administrator: It is so with them, as to every thing they call a sacrament: now to take one step backwards: that bap­tisme will by some of ours, be scarce accounted valid, which is not admini­stred by a lawfull minister; suppose now that some Pope ordaining a Bishop in his stable to satisfy a Whore, had not an in­tention to make him a Bishop, which is no remote surmise; he being no Bishop rightly ordained, all the Priests by him afterwards consecrated, were indeed no priests, and so indeed had no power to administer any Sacraments, and so conse­quently the baptisme that may lye, for ought we know, at the root of that which some of us pretend unto, was originally absolutely null and void, and could ne­ver by tract of time, be made valid, or effectuall, for like a muddy fountaine, [Page 45] the farther it goes, the more filthy it is: or suppose that any Priest, baptizing one who afterwards came to be Pope from whom all Authority in that Church doth flow and is derived, had no inten­tion to baptize him? what will become of all that ensues thereon.

It is endlesse to pursue the uncertain­ties, and intanglements, that insue on this head of account; and sufficiently easy it is to manifest, that whosoever re­solves his interest in Gospell priviledges, into this foundation, can have no assu­rance of faith nay nor tolerably pro­bable conjecture that he is baptized, or was ever made partaker of any ordinance of the Gospell. Let them that delight in such troubled waters, sport themselves in them: for my owne part, considering the state of that Church for some yeares if not Ages, wherein the fountaines of all Authority amongst them, were full of filth and blood, there Popes upon their owne confession being made, set up and pulled downe at the pleasure of vile, impudent domineering strumpets, and [Page 46] supplying themselves with officers all the world over of the same spirit, and stamp with themselves, and that for the most part for hire, being in the meane time all Idolaters to a man; I am not willing to grant, that their Good and up­right intention is necessary to be suppo­sed as a thing requisite unto my inte­rest in any priviledge of the Gospell of Christ.

2. It is an ecclesiasticall determina­tion of irrefragable Authority amongst them, that whosoever he be that admi­nisters baptisme, so he use the matter and forme, that baptisme is Good and valid and not to be reiterated: yea Pope Ni­cholas in his Resolutions and determi­nations upon the enquiry of the Bulga­rians, (whose decrees are authentick and recorded in their Counsells, Tom: 2. Crabb: p. 144.) declares the judgment of that Church to the full: They tell him, that many in their Nation were baptized by an unknowne person, a Jew or a Pagan they knew not whether; and enquire of him, whether they were to [Page 47] be rebaptized or no; whereunto he an­swers; si in nomine S. S. Trinitatis, vel tantum in Christi nomine, sicut in Act is Apostolorum legimus, baptizati sunt, unum quippe idemque est, ut S. Ambrosius ex­pressit, constat eos denuo non esse baptizan­dos: if they were baptized in the name of the Trinity or of Christ, they are not to be baptized againe. Let a blasphemous Jew or Pagan do it, so it be done the work is wrought, grace conveyed, and baptisme valid. The constant practise of women baptizing amongst them, is of the same import: and what doth Mr Cawdry think of this kind of Baptisme? Is it not worth the contending about, to place it in the derived succession of ours? who knowes but that some of these persons, baptized by a counterfeit impostor, on purpose to abuse and de­file the institutions of our blessed Savi­our, might come to be baptizers them­selves, yea Bishops, or Popes; from whom all ecclesiasticall Authority was to be derived; and what evidence or certainty can any man have, that his [Page 48] baptisme doth not flow from this foun­taine.

3. Nay upon the Generall account, if this be required as necessary to the administration of that ordinance, that he that doth baptize, be rightly and effe­ctually baptized himselfe; who can in faith bring an infant to any, to be bap­tized, unlesse he himselfe saw that per­son rightly baptized.

As to the matter of Baptisme then, we are no more concerned, then as to that of Ordination; by what waies or meanes soever any man comes to be a minister, according to the mind of Je­sus Christ; by that way and meanes he comes to have power for a due admini­stration of that ordinance: concerning which state of things, our Author may do well to consult Beza in the place mentioned. Many other passages there are in this Chapter, that might be re­marked, and a returne easily made ac­cording to their desert of untruth and impertinency; but the insisting on such things, lookes more like childrens play­ing [Page 49] at pushpin, then the management of a serious disputation: Take an instance, pag. 23. he seemes to be much offen­ded with my commending him; and tells me, as Jerome said of Ruffinus, I wrong him with prayses; when yet the utmost I say of him is, that I had received a better character of him, then he had gi­ven of himselfe in his book, pag. 10. and that his proceeding was unbecom­ing his worth, gravity and profession, pag. 46. or so Grave and Reverend a person as he is reported to be, pag. 121. where­in it seemes I have transgressed the rule, [...].

The businesse of his second Chapter is to make good his former charge of my inconstancy and inconsistency with my selfe as to my former and present O­pinions, which he had placed in the Fron­tispiece of his other Treatise. The Im­pertinency of this Chapter had beene intolerable, but that the loose discourses of it are relieved by a scheme of my self-Contradictions in the close. His designe, he professeth, in his former discourse was [Page 50] not to blast my Reputation, or to cause my person to suffer, but to prevent the prevalency of my way by the Authority of my person, That is, it was not his in­tention, it was only his intention for such a purpose. I blesse my God I have good security through Grace, that whe­ther he, or others like minded with himselfe, intend any such thing or no, in those proceedings of his and theirs, which seemed to have in their owne na­ture, a tendency thereunto, my repu­tation shall yet be preserved in that state and Condition, as is necessary to accom­pany me in the duties and workes of my Generation, that I shall through the hand of God be called out unto; And therefore being prepared in some mea­sure, to go through good report and bad report, I shall give him assurance, that I am very litle concerned in such at­tempts, from what ever intention they do proceed; Only I must needs tell him, that he consulted not his owne reputati­on with peaceable godly men, what ever else he omitted, in the ensuing Com­paring [Page 51] of me to the seducers in Jude, called wandring Planets, for their incon­stancy and inconsistency with themselves, according to the exposition that was needfull for the present turne.

But seeing the Scheme at the close must beare the weight of this charge, let us briefly see what it amounts unto; and whether it be a sufficient basis of the su­struction, that is raised upon it; Hence it is, that my inconsistency with my selfe, must be remarked in the title page of his first Treatise; from hence must my Authority (which what it is I know not) be impaired, and my selfe be Com­pared to cursed Apostates and Seducers, and great triumph be made and upon my selfe inconsistency.

The Contradictions pretended are taken out of two bookes, the one writ­ten in the yeare 1643. The other in 1656. and are as followes.

He spake of Rome as a Collapsed, Corrupted Church-State. p. 40.He saies Rome we ac­count no Church at all. pag. 156.

[Page 52] Crimen in auditum C. Caesar; is it meet that any one should be tolerated, that is thus wofully inconsistent with himselfe? what! speak of Rome as a Collapsed Church in Italy, and within thirteene, or fourteene yeares after to say, it is no Church at all; well! though I may say there is indeed no Contradi­ction between these Assertions, seeing in the latter place I speak of Rome as that Church is stated by themselves, when yet I acknowledge there may be corrupted Churches both in Rome and I­taly in the same Treatise; Yea I do not find that in the place directed unto, I have in termes, or in just consequence at all granted the Church of Rome to be a Collapsed Church: nay the Church of Rome is not once mentioned in the whole page, nor as such is spoken of: and what shall we think of this proceed­ing? But yet I will not so farre offend against my sense of my owne weaknes, ig­norance and frailty, as to use any defen­sative against this Charge; let it passe at any rate that any sober man freed [Page 53] from pride, passion, selfefulnesse, and prejudice shall be pleased to put upon it;


But the second instance will make a­mends, and take more of the weight of this Charge upon its shoulders: Take it then as it lies in its triple Columne.

Guifts in the Person, and con­sent of people, is warrant enough to make a man a prea­cher in an extra­ordinary Case? on­ly pag. 15. and pag. 40.Denying our or­dination to be suf­ficient, he sayes he may have that which indeed Con­stitutes him a mi­nister, viz: Guifts and submission by the People p. 198.I am punctually of the same mind still p. 40. Yet had said in his first book p. 46. as to formall teaching is required 1 Guifts, 2 Authority from the Church, if he do not equivocate.

I must Confesse I am here at a stand, to find out the pretended Contradi­ction; especially laying aside the word only in the first Columne which is his and not mine. By a Preacher in the first Place I intend a minister: Guifts and Consent or submission of the People, I affirme in both places to be sufficient, to constitute a man a minister in extraordinary Cases; [Page 54] That is, when imposition of hands by a Presbytery may not be obtained in due order according to the appointment of Jesus Christ. That the Consent and sub­mission of the people, which include Ele­ction, have nothing of Authority in them I never said: the superadded Act of the imposition of hands by a Presbytery, when it may be regularly obtained, is also ne­cessary. But that there is any Contradi­ction in my words, (although in truth they are not my words but an undue col­lection from them) or in this Authors in­ference from them, or any colour of E­quivocation, I professe I cannot discerne: in this place Mr Cawdrey [...]. Passe we to the third.

He made the Union of Christ and believers to be mysticall pag. 21.He makes the Union to be Personall. pag. 94. 95.

I wish our Reverend Author for his owne sake, had omitted this Instance; be­cause I am enforced in mine owne necessa­ry defence to let him know, that what [Page 55] he assignes to me in his second Columne, is notoriously false, denied, and disproved, by me in the very place, and Treatise wherein I have handled the Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Spirit; and whe­ther he will heare or forbeare, I cannot but tell him, that this kind of dealing, is unworthy his calling and profession. His following Deductions and Infe­rences whereby he endeavours to give countenance to this false and calumnious charge, arise from ignorance of the Do­ctrine that he seeks to blemish and op­pose. Though the same spirit dwell in Christ and us, yet He may have him in fullnesse, we in measure; Fulnesse and measure relating to his Communication of Graces and Gifts, which are arbitra­ry to him; indwelling to his person: that the Spirit animates the Catholick Church, and is the Author of its spi­rituall life by a voluntary act of his power, as the soule gives life to the bo­dy, by a necessary act, by virtue of its union, for life is actus vivificant is in vi­vificatum per unionem utriusque, is the [Page 56] Common Doctrine of Divines. But yet the soule being united to the body, as pars Essentialis suppositi, and the spi­rit dwelling in the Person as a free inha­bitant, The union between Christ and the Person, is not of the same kind with the union of soule and Body; let our Au­thor Consult Zanchy on the second of the Ephesians, and it will not repent him of his labour; or if he please an Author whom I find him often citing, namely, Bishop Hall about union with Christ. And for my Concernment in this charge I shall subjoyne the words from whence it must be taken; Pag. 133. of my book of Perseverance.

1. The first signall Issue and effect which is ascribed to this Indwelling of the Spirit, is Union; not a Personall Union with himselfe, which is impossible: He doth not assume our natures, and so pre­vent our Personality, which would make us one person with him, but dwells in our persons, keeping his owne, and leaving us our Personality infinitely distinct; But it is a spirituall Union; the great union [Page 57] mentioned so often in the Gospell, that is the sole Fountaine of our Blessednesse; our Union with the Lord Christ, which we have thereby. Many thoughts of heart there have been about this Union; what it is, wherein it doth consist, the causes, manner, and Effects of it; The Scrip­ture expresses it to be very Eminent, necre, durable, setting it out, for the most part, by similitudes, and Metapho­ricall Illustrations, to lead poore weak Creatures into some usefull needfull ac­quaintance with that Mystery, whose depths in this life, they shall never fathome. That many in the daies wherein we live, have miscarried in their conceptions of it, is evident; some to make out their Imagi­nary Union have destroyed the person of Christ, and fancying a way of uniting man to God by him, have left him to be nei­ther God nor Man. Others have destroy­ed the Person of Believers, affirming that in their Union with Christ, they loose their owne personality, that is, cease to be Men: or at least, those, are these Individuall men.

[Page 58] I intend not now to handle it at large, but only (and that I hope without offence) to give in my thoughts concerning it, as farre as it receiveth light from, and re­lateth unto, what hath been before deli­vered, concerning the Indwelling of the Spirit, & that without the least contending about other waies of Expression. So far there; with much more to the purpose; & in the very place of my book of Schisme, referred to by this Author, I affirme as the head of what I assert, that by the indwelling of the spirit, Christ per­sonall and his Church do become one Christ mysticall; 1 Cor. 12. 12. The very expression insisted on by him, in my former Treatise; and so you have an issue of this selfe-Contradiction, con­cerning which, though reports be ur­ged for some other things, Mr Caw­dry might have said what Lucian doth of his true History; [...].

[Page 59] Let us then consider the 4th which is thus Placed.

1. In ex­traordinary ca­ses every one that under­takes to preach the Gospell must have an immediate Call from God pag. 28.2. Yet required no more of before but Gif [...]s & Con­sent of the People which are ordinary, and mediate Calls p. 15. neither is here any need or use of an immediate Call, pag. 533. To assure a man that he is extraordi­ly called, he gives 3 wayes, 1 Immedi­ate revelation, 2 Con­currence of Scripture rule. 3 Some outward acts of Providence. The two last where­of are mediate Calls, pag. 30.

All that is here remarked and Cast in­to 3 Columnes, I know not well why, is taken out of that one Treatise of the du­ty of Pastours & People. And could I give my selfe the least Assurance that any one would so farre concerne himselfe in this Charge, as to Consult the Places from whence the words are Pretended to be taken, to see whether there be any thing in them to answer the cry that is made, I should spare my selfe the la­bour of adding any one syllable towards their vindication; and might most safe­ly [Page 60] so doe, there being not the least co­lour of opposition betweene the things spoken of. In briefe Extraordinary Ca­ses are not all of one sort and nature; in some an extraordinary call may be re­quired, in some not. Extraordinary calls are not all of one kind and nature neither; some may be immediate from God in the wayes there by me described; some calls may be said to be extraordi­nary, because they doe in some things come short of, or goe beyond the ordin­nary rule that ought to be observed in well Constituted Churches. Againe, concurrence of Scripture rules and acts of outward Providence, may be such some­times, as are suited to an ordinary, some­times to an extraordinary Call; All which are at large unfolded in the Places directed unto by our Authour, and all laid in their owne order without the least shadow of Contradiction. But it may sometimes be said of good men as the Satyristsaid of evill Women; fortem a­nimum praestant rebus quas turpiter au­dent. Goe we to the next.

[Page 61]

1. The Church Go­vernment from which I desire not to wander is the Presbyteriall.2. He now is ingaged in the indepen­dent way.3. Is setled in that way which he is ready to maintain and knows it will be found his rejoycing in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Hinc mihi sola malilabes: This is that inexpiable crime that I labour under; an account of this whole businesse I have given in my Review; So that I shall not here trouble the Reader with a repeti­tion of what he is so litle concerned in. I shall only adde that whereas I suppose Mr Cawdrey did subscribe unto the 39 Articles at his Ordination; were it of a­ny concernement to the Church of God, or the interest of truth, or were it a Comely and a Christian part to engage in such a worke, I could manifest Con­tradictions, between what he then so­lemnly subscribed to, and what he hath since written and Preached, manyfold above what he is able to draw out of this alteration of my Judgment. Be it [Page 62] here then declared, that whereas I some­times apprehended the Presbyterial Sy­nodicall Government of Churches, to have been fit to be received and walked in, (then, when I knew not but that it answered those principles which, I had taken up, upon my best enquiry in­to the word of God) I now professe my selfe to be satisfied, that I was then un­der a mistake; and that I doe now own, and have for many yeares lived in the way and practice of that called Congre­gationall. And for this Alteration of Judgment, of all men, I feare least a Charge from them, or any of them, whom within a few yeares, we saw rea­ding the service book in their surplices, &c: against which things, they doe now inveigh and declame. What influence the perusall of Mr Cotton's Booke of the Keyes, had on my thoughts in this bu­sinesse I have formerly declared. The answer to it (I suppose that written by himselfe) is now recommended to me by this Authour, as that which would have perhaps prevented my, Change; [Page 63] But I must needs tell him, that as I have perused that book, many yeares agoe, with­out the Effect intimated, so they must be things written with an other frame of spirit, evidence of truth, and manner of reasoning, then any I can find in that booke, that are likely for the future, to lay hold upon my Reason and under­standing. Of my settlement in my pre­sent Perswasion I have not only given him an account formerly, but with all Christian Courtesy, tendred my selfe in a readinesse Personally to meet him, to give him the proofes and reasons of my my perswasions; which he is pleased to decline & returne in way of answer, That I Complemented him, after the mode of the times; when no such thing was in­tended. And therefore my words of desiring liberty to waite upon him, are expressed, but the end and purpose for which it was desired, are concealed, in an &c. But he addes another instance.

[Page 64]

Men ought not to cut thēselves from the communion of the Church, to rent the body of Christ and breake the sa­cred bond of Charity, Duty. 1. 48.2 He sayes separa­tion is no Schisme, nor Schisme any breach of Charity, pag. 48. 49.There is not one word in either of those cautions, that I do not still own and allow, p. 44. sure not without Equivocation.

I have before owned this Caution, as consistent with my present Judgment, as expressed in my Booke of schisme and as it is indeed; wherein lyes the appea­rance of Contradiction I am not able to discerne: Doe not I in my Booke of Schisme Declare and prove, that men ought not to cut themselves from the Communion of the Church; That they ought not to rent the body of Christ, that they ought not to break the sacred bonds of Charity? Is there any word or tittle in the whole Discourse deviating from these Principles? How and in what sense, Separation is not Schisme, that the nature of Schisme doth not consist in a breach of Charity, the Treatise instan­ced will so farre declare, as withall to [Page 65] Convince those that shall Consider what is spoken, that our Authour scarce keeps close either to Truth or Charity in his framing of this Contradiction: The Close of the Scheme lies thus.

I conceive they ought not at all to be allowed the bene­fit of private meeting, who willfully abstaike from the publick Congregations.As for liberty to be allowed to those that meet in private, I confesse my-selfe to be other­wise minded.

I remember that about 15 yeeres a­goe, meeting occasionally with a lear­ned Friend, we fell into some debate, about the liberty that began then to be claimed by men, differing from what had been, and what was then likely to be established; having at that time made no farther enquiry into the grounds and reasons of such liberty, then what had oc­curred to me in the writings of the Re­monstrants, all whose plea was still pointed towards the advantage of their owne interest, I delivered my Judg­ment in opposition to the liberty pleaded for, which was then defended by my [Page 66] learned Friend; Not many yeares after, discoursing the same difference with the same Person, we found immediately that we had changed Stations, I pleading for an Indulgence of liberty, he for restraint; whether that learned and worthy Person be of the same mind still that then he was, or no, directly I know not: But this I know, that if he be not, Consi­dering the Compasse of Circumstances that must be taken in, to settle a right Judgment in this Case of Liberty, and what alterations influencing the Deter­mination of this Case we have had of late in this nation, he will not be ashamed to owne his Change; Being a Person who despises any reputation, but what arises from the Embracing and pursuit of truth; my Change I here owne; my Judgment is not the same in this Parti­cular, as it was 14 yeeres ago j and in my Change I have good Company whome I need not to name. I shall on­ly say my Change was at least 12 yeares before the Petition and Advice; wherein the Parliament of the three Nations, is [Page 67] come up to my judgment: And if Mr Cawdrey, hath any thing to object to my Present Judgment, let him at his next leisure Consider the Treatise that I wrote in the yeare 1648, about Tole­ration, where he will find the whole of it expressed: I suppose he will be do­ing, and that I may almost say of him, as Polycteutus did of Speusipus; [...]. And now Christian Reader I leave it to thy Judg­ment whether our Author had a­ny just cause, of all his outcryes, of my inconstancy and selfe-Contradi­ction; and whether it had not been ad­visable for him to have passed by this seeming advantage of the designe he pro­fessed to mannage, rather than to have injured his owne Conscience and Repu­tation to so litle purpose.

Being sufficiently tired with the con­sideration of things of no relation to the Cause at first proposed (but, this saith he, this the independents, this the Brow­nists and Anabaptists &c.) I shall [Page 68] now only enquire after that which is set up in opposition to any of the princi­ples of my Treatise of Schisme before mentioned, or any of the propositions of the syllogismes wherein they are com­prized, at the beginning of this Dis­course; remarking in our way some such particular passages, as it will not be to the disadvantage of our Reverend Au­thour to be reminded of. Of the nature of the thing enquired after, in the third Chapter I find no mention at all; only he tels me by the way, that the Doctor's assertion that my Booke about Schisme, was one great schisme, was not non sense; but usuall Rhetoricke, wherein profligate sinners may be called by the name of sin; and therefore a Booke about Schisme, may be called a schisme; I wish our Au­thour had found some other way of ex­cusing his Doctor, then by making it worse himselfe.

In the fourth Chapter he comes to the businesse it selfe; and if in passing tho­rough that, with the rest that follow, I can fix on any thing rising up with [Page 69] any pretence of opposition to what I have laid down, it shall not be omitted; for things by my selfe asserted, or acknow­ledged on all hands, or formerly ven­tilated to the utmost, I shall not againe trouble the Reader with them: such are the positions about the generall nature of Schisme, in things naturall and poli­ticall, antecedently considered to the limitation and restriction of it to it's Ec­clesiasticall use; the departure from Churches voluntary or compelled &c: all which were stated in my first Treatise, and are not directly opposed by our Au­thour; such also is that doughty Con­troversie he is pleased to raise, and pur­sue about the seat and subject of Schisme with it's restriction to the instituted wor­ship of God, pag. 18. 19: so placed by me, to distinguish the Schisme whereof we speake, from that which is naturall, as also from such differences and breaches as may fall out amongst men, few or more, upon civill and rationall accounts; all which I exclude from the enjoyment [Page 70] of any roome or place in our considera­tion of the true nature of schisme in it's limited Ecclesiasticall sense. The like also may be affirmed concerning the en­suing strife of words about separation and schisme; as though they were in my apprehension of them, inconsistent; which is a fancy no better grounded than sundry other, which our Reverend Au­thour is pleased to make use of. His whole passage also receives no other se­curity, than what is afforded to it by turning my universall proposition into a particular: what I say of all places in the Scripture where the name or thing of schisme is used in an ecclesiasticall sense, as relating to a Gospell Church, he would restraint to that one place of the Co­rinths where alone the word is used, in that sense: However if that one place be all; my proposition is universall: take then my proposition in it's extent and latitude, and let him try once more if he please, what he hath to object to it, for as yet I find no instance produced to alleviate it's truth. He much also in­sists, [Page 71] that there may be a separation in a Church where there is no se­paration from a Church, and saith this was at first by me denyed: that it was de­nyed by me he cannot prove; but that the contrary was proved by me is evi­dent to all impartiall men, that have Considered my Treatise; although I cannot allow that the separation in the Church of Corinth was carried to that height as is by him pretended; namely as to seperate from the ordinances of the Lord's supper; their disorder and divi­sion about and in it's Administration are reproved, not their separation from it: only on that supposition made, I con­fesse I was somewhat surprised with the delivery of his judgment in reference to many of his owne party, whom he con­demnes of schisme for not administring the Lord's supper to all the Congrega­tion, with whom they pray and preach. I suppose the greatest part of the most godly and able ministers of the Persby­terian way in England, and Scotland, are here cast into the same condition of [Page 72] Schismaticks with the Independents. And the truth is, I am not yet without hopes of seeing a faire coalescency in love, and Church Communion, between the reforming Presbyterians and Inde­pendents; though for it they shall with some, suffer under the unjust imputa­tation of schisme.

But it is incredible to think whithermen will suffer themselves to be carried studio partium; and [...]; Hence have we the strange notions of this Au­thour about Schisme; decaies in Grace are Schisme, and errours in the Faith are Schisme; and Schisme and Apostacy are things of the same kind, differing on­ly in degree; because the one leades to the other; as one sinne of one kind doth often to another; drunkennesse to whore­dome, and envy and malice to lying; that differences about civile matters, like that of Paul and Barnabas are schisme; and this by one blaming me for a departure from the sense of antiqui­ty, unto which these insinuations are so many monsters. Let us then proceed.

[Page 73] That Acts 14. 4. Acts 19. 9, 18: are pertinently used to discover & prove the nature of Schisme in an evangelically ec­clesiasticall sense or were ever cited by a­ny of the Antients to that purpose, I suppose our Authour on second consi­deration will not affirme, I understand not the sense of this Argument, the multi­tude of the city was divided, and part held with the Jewes, and part with the Apo­stle, therefore Schisme in a Gospell Church state, is not only a division in a Church; or that it is a separation into new Churches, or that it is something more than the breach of the Union ap­pointed by Christ in an instituted Church; much lesse doth any thing of this nature appeare from Paul's seperating the Disciples whom he had converted to the Faith from the unbelieving harden­ed Jewes, an account whereof is given us, Act. 19. 9. So then that in this Chapter there is any thing produced de novo to prove that the precise Scripture notion of Schisme in it's ecclesiasticall sense, extends it selfe any further than dif­ferences, [Page 74] divisions, separations in a Church and that a particular Church I find not; and doe once more desire our Authour that if he be otherwise minded, to spare such another trouble to our selves, and others, as that wherein we are now engaged, he would assigne me some time and place to attend him for the clearing of the truth between us.

Of Schisme Act. 20. 30. Heb. 10. 28. Jud. 19. there is no mention; nor are those places interpreted of any such thing by any Expositors new or old, that ever I yet saw; nor can any sense be imposed on them enwrapping the nature of Schisme with the least colour or pre­tence of Reason.

But now by our Authour, Schisme and Apostacy, are made things of on kind, differing only in degrees, pag. 107. so confounding Schisme and heresy, contrary to the Constant sense of all antiquity. Act. 20. 30. The Apostle speakes, of men speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples; that is teaching them false doctrines, contrary to the [Page 75] truths wherein they had been by him in­structed; in his Revealing unto them the whole counsell of God: vers. 27. This by the Antients is called heresie, and is contradistinguished unto Schisme by them constantly: So Austin an 100 times. To draw men from the Church, by drawing them into pernitious errours, false doctrine, being the cause of their falling off, is not schisme, nor so cal­led in Scripture, nor by any of the An­tients, that ever yet I observed. That the designe of the Apostle in the Epi­stle to the Hebrewes, is to preserve and keep them from Apostasie unto Judais­me, besides that it is attested by a cloud of witnesses, is to evident from the thing it selfe to be denyed. chapt. 10. 25: he warnes them of a common en­trance into that fearfull condition, which he describes, vers. 26: their neglect of the Christian Assemblies, was the doore of their Apostacy to Judaisme. what is this to schisme? would we charge a man with that crime whom we saw neglecting our assemblies, and likely to fall into Ju­daisme; [Page 76] are there not more forceable considerations to deale with him upon; and doth not the Apostle make use of them? Jude. 19: hath been so farre spo­ken unto already, that it may not faire­ly be insisted on againe. Parvas ha­bet spes Troja, sitables habet.

In the entrance of the fifth Chapter he takes advantage from my question, p. 147. who told him that raising cause­lesse differences in a Church, and then se­parating from it, is not in my judgment schisme; when the first part of the asser­tion, included in that interrogation, expresseth the formal nature of Schisme, which is not destroyed, nor can any man be exonerated of it's guilt, by the subsequent crime of separation, where­by it is aggravated. 1 Joh. 2. 19: is a­gaine mentioned to this purpose of schism, to as little purpose, so also is Heb. 10. 25: both places treat of Apostates, who are charged and blamed under other termes than that of Schisme. There is in such departures, as in every divisi­on whatever, of that which was in U­nion, [Page 77] somewhat of the generall nature of schisme: but that particular crime and guilt of schisme in it's restrained Eccle­siasticall sense, is not included in them.

In his following discourse he renewes his former Charges of denying their or­dinances and ministry, of separating from them and the like; as to the former part of this Charge I have spoken in the en­trance of this discourse; for the latter, of separating from them, I say we have no more separated from them, then they have from us; our right to the celebra­tion of the ordinances of God's worship, according to the light we have received from him, is in this nation as good as theirs; and our plea from the Gospell we are ready to maintaine against them, according as we shall at any time be cal­led thereunto. If any of our judgment deny them to be Churches, I doubt not but he knowes who comes not behind in returnall of Charges on our Churches. Doth the Reverend Authour thinke or imagine, that we have not in our owne judgment more reason to deny [Page 78] their Churches and to charge them with Schisme though we doe neither, then they have to charge us therewith, and to deny our Churches? can any thing be more fondly Pretended than that he hath proved that we have separated from them; upon which, pag. 105, he re­quires the performance of my promise to retreat from the state wherein I stand, upon the establishment of such proofe. Hath he proved the due administration of Ordinances amongst them whom he pleads for? Hath he proved any Church Union betweene them as such, and us? hath hath he proved as to have broken that Union? what will not selfe-fulnesse and prejudice put men upon?

How came they into the sole possession of all Church state in England; so that who ever is not of them, and with them must be charged to have separated from them; Mr Cawdrey sayes indeed, that the Episcopall men and they agree in sub­stantialls, and differ only in circumstan­tials; but that they and we differ in sub­stantials; but let him know they ad­mit [Page 79] not of his compliances; they say he is a Schismatick, and that all his party are so also; let him answer their Charge solidly upon his owne principles; and not thinke to owne that which he hath the weakest claime imaginable unto, and was never yet in possession of. We de­ny that since the Gospell came into England, the Presbyterian Government as by them stated, was ever set up in England, but in the wils of a party of men; so that here as yet, unlesse as it lyes in particular Congregations, where our right is as good as theirs, none have separated from it, that I know of; though many cannot consent unto it. The first Ages we plead ours, the following were unquestionably Episcopall.

In the beginning of Chapter the 6: he attempts to disprove my assertion that the Union of the Church Catholick visible which consists in the professing of the sa­ving doctrine of the Gospell, &c: is broken only by Apostacy. to this end he confounds Apostacy and Schisme, affirming them only to differ in degrees; [Page 80] which is a new notion unknowen to An­tiquity and contrary to all sound Rea­son; by the instances he produceth to this purpose he endeavours to prove that there are things which break this union, whereby this union is not broken; whilst a man continues a member of that church which he is by virtue of the union there­of, and his interest therein, by no act doth he, or can he break that union.

The partiall breach of that union which consists in the profession of the truth, is error and heresy and not Schisme. Our Author abounds here in new notions which might easily be discovered to be as fond, as new, were it worth while to consider them; of which in briefe, before. Only I wonder why giving way to such thoughts as these, he should speak of men with contempt under the name of Notionists, as he doth of Dr Du Moulin; but the truth is, the Doctor hath pro­voked him, and were it not for some considerations that are obvious to me, I should almost wounder, why this Au­thor should sharpen his leasure and zeale [Page 81] against me, who scarse ever publickly touched the grounds and foundations of that Cause which he hath so passionate­ly espoused, and pase by him, who both in Latine and English, hath laid his Axe to the very Root of it, upon principles sufficiently destructive to it, and so ap­prehended, by the best learned in our Authors way, that ever these nations brought forth; but as I said, Reasons lye at hand, why it was more necessary to give me this opposition; which yet hath not altered my Resolution, of handling this controversy in another manner, when I meet with another man­ner of Adversary.

Pag. 110. He fixes on the examina­tion of a particular passage about the dis­ciples of John mentioned Acts 19. 2. of whom I affirmed that it is probable they were rather ignorant of the mi­raculous dispensations of the Holy Ghost, then of the person of the Holy Ghost; alledging to the contrary that the words are more plaine and full then to be so cluded, and that for ought appeares, [Page 82] John did not baptize into the name of the Holy Ghost: I hope the Author doth not so much dwell at home, as to sup­pose this to be a new notion of mine; who almost of late in their criticall notes have not either (at least) considered it, or confirmed it? neither is the question into whose name they were expressely baptized, but in what doctrine they were instructed: He knowes who denies that they were at all actually baptized, be­fore they were baptized by Paul. Nor ought it to be granted without better proofe then any as yet hath been pro­duced, that any of the Saints under the old Testament, were ignorant of the being of the Holy Ghost. neither do the words require the sense by him insisted on; [...], do no more evince the person of the Holy Ghost to be included in them, then in those o­ther Joh. 7. 39. [...]; the lat­ter in the proper sense He will not con­tend for; nor can therefore, the expres­sion being uniforme, reasonably for the latter. Speaking of men openly and no­toriously [Page 83] wicked, and denying them to be members of any Church whatever: he bids me, answer his arguments to the con­trary from the 1 Cor. 5. 7. 2 Thes. 13. 17. and I cannot but desire him that he would impose that task on them that have nothing else to do: for my owne part, I shall not intangle my selfe with things to so little purpose: Having pro­mised my Reader to attend only to that which looks toward the merit of the cause, I must crave his pardon, that I have not been able to make good my resolution: meeting with so little or nothing at all which is to that purpose, I find my selfe entangled in the old diversions that we are now plentifully accustomed unto: but yet I shall endeavour to recompence this losse, by putting a speedy period to this whole trouble, despairing of being able to tender him any other satisfacti­on, whilst I dwell on this discourse. In the meane time to obviate all strife of words if it be possible for the future, I shall grant this Reverend Author that in the generall large notion of Schisme [Page 84] which his opposition to that insisted on by me hath put him upon, I will not de­ny but that He, and I are both Schisma­ticks, and any thing else shall be so, that he would have to be so, rather then to be engaged in this contest any farther. In this sense he affirmes that there was a Schisme between Paul and Barnabas, and so one of them at least, was a Schisma­tick; as also he affirmes the same of 2 les­ser men, though great in their generation Chrysostome and Epiphanius; so error and heresy, if he please shall be Schisme from the Catholick Church, and scan­dall of life shall be Schisme: And his argu­ment shall be true, that schisme is a breach of union in a Church of Christs insti­tution, therefore in that which is so only by call, not to any end of joynt worship as such; of any union; that which consists in the profession of the saving truths of the Gospell, and so there may be a schisme in the Catholick Church; and so those Presbyterians that reforme their Con­gregations, and do not administer the sacraments to all promiscuously, shall [Page 85] be guilty of Schime; and indeed, as to me, what else he pleaseth, for my inqui­ry concernes only the precise limited na­ture of Schisme, in its evangelically ec­clesiasticall sense.

Neither shall I at present, (alloting very few houres to the dispatch of this businesse, which yet I judge more then it deserves) consider the scattered en­suing passages about Ordination, Church Government, number of Elders, and the like, which all men know, not at all to belong unto the maine controver­sy which was by me undertaken; and that they were against all lawes of disputation, plucked violently into this contest, by our Reverend Author. One thing I cannot passe by, and it will upon the matter put a close to what I shall at present offer to this Treatise; having said that Christ hath given no direction for the performance of any duty of worship of soveraigne institution, but only in them and by them (meaning particular Churches) he answers that, if I would imply that a Minister in or of a [Page 86] Particular Church, may performe those or­dinances without those congregations, he contradicts himselfe for saying a particu­lar Church is the seate of all ordinances, but why so, I pray? may not a particular Church be the seat of all ordinances sub­jectively, and yet others be the object of them, or of some of them? but saith he, if he meane those ordinances of wor­ship are to be performed only by a minister of a particular congregation, what shall be­come of the people? I suppose they shall be instructed and built up according to the mind of Christ, and what would people desire more. But whereas he had before said, that I denyed a Minister to be a Minister to more then his own Church: and I had asked him who told him so; ad­ding that explication of my judgment, that for so much as men are appointed the objects of the dispensation of the word, I grant a Minister in the dispensation of it to act ministerially, towards not only the members of the Catholick Church, but the visible members of the world also in con­tradistinction thereunto; he now tells [Page 87] me a story of passages between the lear­ned Dr Wallis and my selfe about his que­stion in the Vespers 1654. namely that as to that question An potestas ministri E­vangelici ad unius tantum ecclesiae parti­cularis membra extendatur? I said that, Dr Wallis had brought me a challenge, and that If I did dispute on that question, I must dispute ex animo; although I grant that a Minister as a Minister may preach the word, to more then those of his owne congregation, yet knowing the sense wherein the learned Dr VVallis maintained that question, it is not impos­sible, but I might say, if I did dispute I must do it ex animo; for his bringing me a challenge, I do not know that either he did so, or that I put that interpretati­on on what he did; but I shall crave leave to say, that if the learned Dr VVal­lis do find any ground, or occasion to bring a challenge unto me, to debate a­ny point of difference between us, I shall not wave answering his desire, al­though he should bring Mr Cawdry for his second; for the present I shall only [Page 88] say, that as it is no commendation to the moderation or ingenuity of any one whatever, thus to publish to the world private hearesaies, and what he hath been told of private conferences; so if I would insist on the same course, to make publication of what I have been told hath been the private discourse of some men, it is not unlikely that I should occasion their shame and trouble: yet in this course of proceeding a progres is made in the ensuing words; and Mr Stubbes (who is now called my Amanu­ensis, who some five yeares ago, transcrib­ed about a sheete of paper for me, and not one line, before or since;) is said to be employed or at least encouraged by me to write against the learned Dr Wallis his Thesis being published; this is as true as much of that that went before, and as somewhat of that, that followes af­ter; and whereas it is added that I said what he had written on that subject, was a scurrilous rididulous piece, it is of the same nature with the rest of the like reports. I knew that Mr [Page 89] Stubbes was writing on that subject; but not untill he had proceeded farre in it; I neither imployed him, nor encou­raged him in it, any otherwise then the consideration of his papers, after he had written them, may be so inter­preted; and the reason why I was not willing he should proceed, next to my desire of continuance of peace in this place, was his using such expressions of me, and somethings of mine, in sun­dry places of his discourse, as I could not modestly allow to be divulged; the following words to the same purpose with them before mentioned, I remem­ber not; nor did ever think to be en­gaged in the consideration of such trans­gressions of the common rules of humane society as those now passed through; Reports, heresayes, talkes, private discourse between friends, allegations countenanced by none of these, nor a­ny thing else, are the weapons where­with I am assaulted. I have heard, I am told, if reports be true, twas vox po­puli at Oxford, is it not so, I presume [Page 90] he will not deny it, are the ornaments of this discourse: strange! that men of ex­perience and gravity should be carried by the power of these temptations not only to the forgetfulnesse of the royall law of Christ, and all Gospell rule of deport­ment towards his professed Disciples: but also be ingaged into wayes and pra­ctises, contrary to the dictates of the law of nature, and such as sundry hea­thens would have abhorred. For my owne part, had not God by his provi­dence placed me in that station, where­in others also that feare him are con­cern'd in me, I should not once turne aside to looke upon such heapes as that which I have now passed over: my judgment in most heads and articles of Christian Religion is long since pub­lished to the world, and I continue through the grace and patience of God preaching in publick answerably to the principles I doe professe; and if any man shall oppose what I have delivered, or shall so deliver, in print or in the pulpit, or in divinity lectures, as my [Page 91] judgment, I shall consider his op­position, and doe therein, as God shall guide: with evill surmises, charges upon hearesayes, and reports, attended with perpetuall excursions from the Argu­ment in hand, I shall no more con­tend.

Some few observations on scattered passages, will now speedily issue this discourse. Pag. 112. To that Assertion of mine, that if Rome be no particular Church, it is no Church at all, for the Catholicke Church it is not, he re­plyes that though it be not such a parti­cular Congregation as I intend, yet it may be a particular Patriarchall Church: but, 1: then it seemes it is a particular Church, which grants my inference.

2. It was a particular Church of Christ's institution, that I inquired af­ter; doth our Authour think that Christ hath appointed any Patriarchall Church? a Patriarchall Church, as such, is such from it's Relation to a Patriarch: and he can scarce be thought to judge Pa­triarches to be of Divine institution, [Page 92] who hath cast off and abjured Epis­copacy.

The Donatists are mentioned againe, p. 113. And I am againe Charged with an attempt to vindicate them from schisme; my thoughts of them I have before de­clared to the full; & have no reason to re­tract any thing from what was then spo­ken, or to adde any thing thereunto; if it may satisfie our Authour, I here grant they were Schismatickes, with what aggravations he pleaseth; & where­in their schisme consisted, I have also de­clared: but he sayes, I undertake to exempt some others from schisme (I know whom) that suffer with them in former and after ages, under the same imputation; I doe so indeed, and I sup­pose our Authour may ghesse at whom I intend: himselfe amongst others; I hope he is not so taken up in his thoughts, with charging schisme on o­thers, as to forget, that many, the greatest part and number of the true Churchs of Christ doe condemne him for a Schismatick; a Donatisticall Schis­matick: [Page 93] I suppose he acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a true Church; the Lutheran I am perswaded he will not deny, nor perhaps the Grecian, to be so: The Episcopall Church of England, he contends for; and yet all these with one voice cry out upon him for a Schismaticke: and as to the plea of the last, how he can satisfie his consci­ence, as to the rejection of his lawfull su­periors, upon his owne principles, with­out pretending any such crime against them, as the Donatists did against Caeci­lianus, I professe I do not understand: new mention is made of Episcopall ordi­nation, p. 120, And they are said to have had their successive ordination from Rome who ordained therein; so indeed some say, and some otherwise; whether they had or no, is nothing to me, I lay no weight upon it; they held I am sure, that place in England, that without their approbation no man could publickly, preach the Gospell; to say they were Presbyters, and ordained as Presby­ters, I know not what satisfaction can a­rise [Page 94] unto Conscience thereby. Party and argument, may be countenanced by it; they professe they ordained as Bi­shops, that for their lives and soules they durst not ordaine but as such; so they told those whom they ordained, and affirme they have open injury done them, by any ones deniall of it: As it was, the best is to be made of it; this shift is not handsome; nor is it ingenious, for any one, that hath looked into Antiquity, to charge me with departing from their sense in the notion of schisme, declared about the 3d & 4th Ages, & at the same time to maintaine an equality between Bishops and Presbyters; or to say that Bi­shops ordained as Presbyters, not as Bi­shops: nor doe I understand the excel­lency of that order which we see in some Churches, where they have two sorts of Elders; the one made so, by ordi­nation without Election, and the other by Election without ordination; those who are ordained, casting off all power and Authority of them that ordained them; and those who are elected, im­mediately [Page 95] rejecting the greatest part of those that chose them.

Nor did I, as is pretend, plead for their Presbyterian way in the yeare 46; all the ministers (almost) in the county of Essex, know the contrary; one es­pecially, who being a man of great abi­lity, and moderation of spirit, and for his knowledge in those things, not be­hind any man, I know, in England of his way, with whome in that yeare, and the next following, I had sundry con­ferences at publicke meetings of mini­sters, as to the severall wayes of Refor­mation, then under proposall. But the frivolousnesse of these imputations, hath been spoken of before, as also the fals­nesse of the Calumny, which our Au­thour is pleased to repeat againe, about my turning from wayes in Religion.

My description of a particular Church he once more blames as applicable to the Catholicke Church invisible, and to the visible Catholick Church (I suppose he meanes as such) when a participation in the same ordinances numerically, is as­signed [Page 96] as its difference; He askes, whe­ther it becomes my ingenuity, to inter­pret the capability of a Churches redu­ction to it's primitive constitution, by its owne fitnesse and capacity to be so re­duced, rather then by its externall hin­derances or furtherances; But with what ingenuity or modesty, that que­stion is asked, I professe I understand not; and pag. 134, he hath this passage: (only I take notice of his introduction, to his answer, with thankes for the civili­ty of the inquiry in the manner of its ex­presion; my words were these: whether our Reverend Authour doe not in his con­science thinke there was no true Church in England 'till, &c, which puts me into sus­pition, that the Reverend Doctour was offended, that I did not alwaies (for oft I doe) give him that title, of the Re­verend Authour, or the Doctor, which made him cry out he was never so dealt withall by any party as by me; though upon review, I doe not find, that I gave him any uncivill language, unbeseeming me to give or him to receive; and I heare that [Page 97] somebody hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect, which he took very ill.

Let this Reverend Authour, make what use of it he please, I cannot but a­gaine tell him, that these things become neither him, nor any man professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, or that hath any respect to truth or sobriety; can a­ny man thinke, that in his conscience, he gives any credit to the insinuation which here he makes, that I should thanke him for calling me Reverend Authour, or Reverend Doctor, or be troubled for his not useing those expressions? Can the mind of an honest man be thought to be conversant with such meane and low thoughts? for the Title of Reverend, I doe give him notice that I have very lit­tle valued it, ever since I have conside­red the saying of Luther; Nunquam pe­riclitatur Religio nisi inter Reverendissi­mos. So that he may as to me forbeare it for the future, and call me, as the Quakers doe, and it shall suffice. And for that of Doctor; it was conferred on me by the University in my absence, [Page 98] and against my consent, as they have expressed it under their publicke seale: nor doth any thing but gratitude, and respect unto them, make me once own it; and freed from that obligation, I should never use it more, nor did I use it, untill some were offended with me, & blamed me for my neglect of them. And for that other, whom he mentions, who be­fore this, gave so farre place to indig­nation, as to infinuate some such thing, I doubt not but by this time he hath beene convinced of his mistake therein, being a Person of another manner of a­bility and worth, then some others, with whom I have to doe; and the truth is, my manner of dealing with him in my last reply, which I have since my selfe not so well approved of, requires the passing by such returnes. But you will say then why doe I preface this discourse, with that Expression; with thankes for the civility of the enquiry in the manner of it's expression? I say! this will disco­ver the iniquity of this Authour's pro­cedure, in this particular: His enquiry [Page 99] was, whether I did not in my Conscience think that there were no true Churches in England, untill the Brownists our Fa­thers, the Anabaptists our elder brothers, and our selves arose, and gathered new Churches; without once taking notice, or mentioning his titles that he sayes he gave me, I used the words, in a sense obvious to every man's first considerati­on, as a reproofe of the expressions men­tioned; that which was the true cause of my words our Authour hides in an &c: that which was not by me once taken no­tice of, is by him expressed; to serve an end of drawing forth an evill surmize and suspition, that hath not the least colour to give it countenance; Passing by all indifferent Readers, I referre the honesty of this dealing with me, to the judgment of his owne conscience; set­ting downe, what I neither expressed, nor tooke notice of, nor had any singu­lar occasion in that place so to doe, the words being often used by him, hiding, and concealing what I did take notice of, and expresse, and which to every man's [Page 100] view was the occasion of that passage, that conclusion or unworthy insinuation is made, which a Good man ought to have abhorred.

Sundry other particulars there are, partly false, and calumniating, partly impertinent, partly consisting in mi­stakes, that I thought at the first view, to have made mention of; but on seve­rall accounts, I am rather willing here to put an end to the Readers trouble, and my owne.

The Preface.

THE Servants of the Lord (saith Paul) must not strive, but be Gentile to­wards all men, 2 Tim. 2. 24. how much more towards their Brethren? But what if a Brother, should become an Adver­sary (whether Adversarius lit is, or Personae,) and speak hard words, yea and write a Booke against his fel­low Servants? Job telleth us, though he could, yet he would not speak as they doe, Job. 16. 4, 5. And for the book against him, He would take it and bind it upon his shoulder, And yet I doe not think he meant to cast it be­hind his Backe, but that he would bearé it as a light loade, and in case [Page 2] of his Innocency, He would we are it as his Crowne: And for that end, would declare unto Him the Number of his steps, Job. 31. 35, 36, 37? Yea though such a Booke might seeme to Impartiall and Judicious mindes written with a Spirit of Bitternesse, and contempt, and in a Style suitable, yet the Servants of the Lord have not so learned Christ, nor the Truth (as it is in Jesus) as to Returne Evill for Evill, or Reviling for Reviling. Hard words are not Given, but as the Lord com­mandeth, if not in his Ordinances, yet in his Providence: And either they are Deserved, & then they are an excellent Balme which will not break the head: or undeserved, and then the Lord will Requite Good to him that suf­fereth evill. It is no new Thing for God's owne Servants to be taken with Paroxismes (as Paul and Barna­bas were, Act. 15.) that is, with Pangs of Passion, And that is the worst I conceive of the tartest Passages of Mr Cawdryes Reply. For I see by his [Page 3] dealing with Mr Hooker, that he can write with more meeknesse, and mo­deration, when the Lord helpeth him: Let me therefore briefly give Ac­count of such Passages of mine, as have seemed most offensive to Him: and that in such termes, as may not unbeseeme either my selfe, or the cause.

CHAP. 1.

THE first offence he taketh, is a­gainst my Inconstancy, and (that which is the fruit of it) my mani­fest and manifold Contradictions to my selfe to the number of about 21: Inconstancy in the generall He Inti­mateth in the Text of James in his Frontispiece, James 1. 8.

A Double minded man is unstable in all his wayes.

To which I will Rejoyne no other An­swer than a Text of like Authority, and alleadged (I hope) with more Pertinency, Math. 11. 7. What went [Page 4] you out into the wildernesse to see? A Reede shaken with the winde?

The Contradictions are set forth in great letters in the Title Page and af­terwards particularly in an ample Scheme in 3 Columnes in the end of his reply, let us consider of them in order.

The 1rst Contradiction.

1. The Keyes were given to Pe­ter at an Apostle as an Elder, as a Believer. So the Sense is most full. The keyes, Pag. 4.1. The power of the keyes is given to Peter, not at an Apostle nor as Elder, but as a Profest Believer The way, P. 27.1 Peter Received not the keyes, meerely as a Believer, but as a Believer publickly professing his Faith, &c. The way cleared Part. 2 p. 39. To like Purpose M. Hooker Surv. Part. 1. p. 203

The Reconciliation of this Seem­ing Contradiction were obvious and easy; take the words as they stand in the Scheme; for so it might be said, Brethren, are sometimes put for pri­vate members of the Church, and Contradistinguished from such as beare office in the Church. As when it is said in the Synodicall Letter (Act. [Page 5] 15. 23.) The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. Sometimes Brethren are put more generally, as Comprehen­ding all the members of the Church, both officers and private members as Gal. 6. 1: and frequently else where: In the former Sence, the Passage in the Keyes speaketh, when it saith, the sense of the words will be most full, if Peter be conceived as Receiving the Keyes in the Name both of the offi­cers, and private members, to wit, in the Name of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. In the latter sense, the words of the Scheme might be ta­ken to Runne, That the Power of the keyes was given to Peter, not as an Apostle (for then it had been Gi­ven only to the Apostles:) nor as an Elder (for then it had been only to Elders) but as a Profest Believer. And under the Generall Name of Profest Believers, not only private Brethren, but Apostles, and Elders may be comprehended. For all the A­postles & all the Elders are profest Be­lievers: [Page 6] And so all of them may claime their Interest in the Power of the keyes, according to the severall mea­sure and latitude of Power assigned to them in the Scriptures. But I will not so answer; because in the Way the context speaketh of such Brethren, as have not power to exercise the Pasto­ral Ministry of the word & Sacraments. But notwithstanding that the Assoyl­ment of the contradiction is no lesse faire and cleare. For Mr Cawdrey well knoweth (and so doth any Logician:) That to a contradiction, It is a ne­cessary Requisite (amongst others:) That both speake ad Idem. But here it is otherwise. In the keyes I spake of such a power of the keyes, as Peter Received Formally, standing in the roome both of an Apostle and of an Elder, and of a Profest Believer: that is, such a Power as Peter having Received might exercise in his own person, and each one of them respe­ctively. In the Way, I spake of such a power, as the Brethren of the Church [Page 7] have Received not formally (farther than concerneth their own liberty) but virtually only.

For though the Brethren have not a formall Power to excercise the Pa­storall ministry of the word and Sacra­ments, yet they have a virtuall Power to exercise them by choosing and cal­ling forth such Officers as have a for­mall Power to exercise the same. And there is nothing in the keyes, or in the way, or in the Defence, that con­tradicteth this. So that both these two Passages (in the keyes, and in the way) are so farre from making a Contradiction (and that so flat as never any more) as that they doe not indeed amount to an Opposition. In an Opposition both parts cannot be true: here both are true. Peter con­sidered as standing in the Roome of an Apostle, Elder, and Profest Be­liever, did receive Formally all the Power of the keyes: The Body of the Brethren have received, though the power of their liberty Formally; [Page 8] yet all other Parts of Church Power which belongeth to Officers, they have Received only virtually and this very distinction is expressed in terminis, in the very same Page (27. of the way) whence this [...] is fetched. As for his Exageration of the Contradiction, That is was as flat, as never any more, though he to make this Comparative Speech seem lesse hyperbolicall, doe tell us in a Paren­thesis, That Contradictions doe not Recipere magis & minùs (and there­fore if they make any Contradiction at all It must needs be as slat, as ever any was:) He may be pleased to Con­sider, That such a Parenthesis, though it make his Speech, lesse hyperbolicall, yet it maketh it the more irrationall; If I should say Nero was as wicked a man as ever any was, and yet presup­pose all men were equally wicked (wickednesse in men did not Recipe­re magis & minùs) there were very little Reason in Such Exaggeration. In my former Answer to this Contra­diction [Page 9] (intituled, The way of the Congre­gationall Churches cleared) I said the words whereon the Assertour groun­ded this Contradiction, were his own not mine. For He reporteth me to say (in the keyes pag. 4.) That the keyes were delivered to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, as a Believer. But in his Preface (Sect. 5. Num. 1.) He confesseth;

That the words are not mine in ter­minis: but in sense, (he saith) they be. For I said take Peter not as an Apostle Only, but as an Elder also, and a Believer too, all may well stand together.

Whereupon he Inferreth; Doth not this discourse clearly hold forth this Pro­position, as the sense of that Text, The keyes were delivered to Peter as an A­postle, as an Elder, as a Believer too? all may well stand together.

Ans. That discourse of mine is so farre from clearly holding forth that Proposition, that it clearly holdeth forth the contrary in expresse termes: [Page 14] my expresse termes be, Take Peter considered not only as an Apostle &c. now if not only as an Apostle, than not as an Apostle, For if they were delivered to him as an Apostle, then to all the Apostles, and only to the A­postles: which my words in Termi­nis doe expresly Deny.

But saith he, This Apology maketh it worse, For if it be so that whatsoever is Attributed to any as such, is given to all such universally, reciprocally, and on­ly to such: Now Assume.

But the keyes were given to Peter as an Apostle, Therefore they were given only to the Apostles, and not to the Be­lievers as such.

But here the Assumption is Palpa­bly false, not at all delivered by me, but dragged out of my words against the letter and against the sence of them. I say the keyes were not gi­ven to Peter as an Apostle only: why then not to him as an Apostle, but as He is joyntly considered with other Officers and Brethren. When there­fore [Page 15] he Appealeth to the Judgment of any Logician, whether to say Peter Received the keyes not as an Apostle only, but an Elder also, and a Believer, be not as much as to say, Peter had the Power of the keyes given Him, as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a Believer: Verily if that were the Judgment of all Logicians I should conclude, either that Logick had forsaken the world, or at least that my selfe were forsaken of Logick.

When Christ Promised the keyes to Peter, though he spake Indefinite­ly, keyes, yet he meaneth universal­ly all the keyes of the kingdome of Heaven. And to put all the keyes into Peter's hand as an Apostle, though it would communicate them indeed to all the Apostles, yet since the Death of all the Apostles, all the Churches and all the Elders, have been left destitute of the Power of the keyes.

And if so, then why doe we blame the Seekers who have cast off all Chur­ches, [Page 12] and all Ordinances, 'till new A­postles come?

Againe the Replyer Argueth thus on the contrary (from that Passage in the way pag. 27:) If the keyes were given to Peter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, then to all Believers, and only to Believers. But (saith the Way) the keyes were gi­ven to Peter not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, therefore they were given to all Believers (Wo­men and all) and only to Believers.

Ans. It hath been shewed above, That in that Place in the Way, I speak expresly of Profest Believers, to have received all the power of the keyes not Formally, but virtually. So that if there be some Power of the keyes which they cannot exercise Formally as Bre­thren, yet they may exercise the same virtually, by choosing and calling forth such, as may formally exercise the same for them: which presuppo­sed I answer to the Major, If the Pow­er of the keyes (which was to con­tinue [Page 13] in the Church) were given to Pe­ter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, then it was Given to all Believers, and only to believers, & to such whom Believers shall orderly choose, and call forth to execute the same. As to instance in a like example, If heate be Given to Fire, as such, then to all Fire, and only to Fire, & to such other things, as Fire communicateth his virtue to. When therefore the Publishers of the keyes say, The Power of the keyes may be Disposed in a due Al­lotment into divers hands. The Reply­er had no cause to say, Herein they nei­ther Agree with me, nor with them. They say it is put into diverse hands, And he saith it is Given only to Believers: And is not this a Contradi­ction?

Ans: No verily; For when I say It is given to Believers as such, and ex­presse virtually, as well as Formally, The meaning is cleare, It is given to all Believers, and only to Believers, and by them Communicated to such, as [Page 10] they doe orderly choose and call forth, to the exercise of the same. And the publishers of the keyes I doubt not, will say as much. When I said (in the way) That the brethren might not administer Sacraments in Defect of all Officers, And therefore made it appeare that one sort of men (the brethren) had not Received all the Power of the keyes Formally. The Replyer returneth, Truly this is to Dis­cover the Contradiction the more. For if the Power of the keyes be Delivered to Believers as such, then the Power of Administring the Sacraments is Given to them: for that is a Part of the Pow­er of the keyes.

Ans. It is wearysome to repeat so often the same Answer; yet let me say it once more, and leave it; He that saith, Believers Receive all the Power of the keyes as Profest Belie­vers, He saith all of them have Re­ceived the Power, and they only, and such as Receive their Power from them. And this is the force of quate­uus [Page 11] Tale; That whosoever Receive any thing as such, all such doe Receive it, & none but such as Derive it from them.

But saith the Replyer, In the Way, he giveth the greater part of Church power to the Body of the Church (pag. 45.) to wit, to Ordaine, and in some cases) to excommunicate all their Church Officers: which are the high­est Acts of Rule (as else where he spea­keth:) Therefore he may not Deny them the lesser, which is to Administer the Sacraments.

Ans. The answer is ready at hand, and was ready at his hand (in Part 2: of the Congregationall way clea­red pag. 29.) where I Distinguish Po­testas into officiariam and honorariam. Excommunication by the Brethren is the highest Act of Honoraria Potestas: but not of Officiaria Potestas. To Preach the word with Authority, and to Administer the Seales of it, are acts of the highest office-Power in the Church. Popish Divines would take [Page 16] it very ill, if any Act of Church Pow­er were said to be higher than Con­ficere corpus Domini. But excommu­nication largly taken is an Act of a Power proper to a Community. A­ny community hath power ex Natura rei, to Receive into their Commu­nion, & to cast not of their Commu­nion. Every sound Body hath a power to cast out his own superfluous hu­mours, and to cut off his own Putrid members: As for ordination, though we looke at it (with Dr Ames) as Adjunctum consummans of the Peo­ples Election, and vocation of their Officers (and therefore not utterly Excentrical from the Peoples power;) yet our Churches doe not Practise it ordinarily, where they have Elders of their own, or can Procure other Elders to Joyne with them.

As for that last words in the Scheme of the first Contradiction, I know not whether the Replyer put any weight, or stresse, in that, in the first Columne, the keyes are said to be given (to [Page 17] wit, partly) to Believers, and in the same Columne againe to the Frater­nity, with the Presbytery, in the second Columne to Profest Believers, In the third to Believers Publickly Professing their Faith: And (in Mr Hookers Judg­ment) Not to Believers as Believers, but as Believers Covenanting.

But if it be requisite to say any thing to this, I would say. 1. That the Fra­ternity, and Profest Believers, and Belie­vers Publickly Professing their Faith, are all one. And the common Name of Believers is often put for all the rest, They that were Added to the Church (Acts 2. 47: and 41:) are called by the common name of Believers Acts 2. 44. and 4. 32. when Mr Hooker saith the Power is not Given to Believers as Be­lievers, but as Believers Covenanting, He meaneth the same that I do, by Pro­fest Believers.

As for women (whom the Replyer cast in our way before) though they be Believers and so partake in the same common Salvation, as also in the word [Page 18] and seales: yet because of the frailty of their sex, they are expresly exempted by the Apostle from any Act of Power in the Church. 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. and 1 Tim: 2. 11, 12. Yet that Impeacheth not the Generality of the Proposition; That all the Fraternity of Believers have Part in the Power of the Keyes: That all men once Dye is the generall Proposition of the Apostle Heb: 9. 27. which is not Impeached by the Translation of Enoch and Elias.

Having thus cleared the first Answer to this contradiction, Let us weigh next what he saith to the second Answer, which saith he is given to help out the former, for I had said.

2. If there had been some Difference between the Keyes and the Way, in some expressions: yet it lay rather in Logicall Termes, then in the Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise, and such is this, about the first subject of the Power of the Keyes.

What saith the Replyer to this? He Returneth a double exception.

1. Saith He, Had it been only a les­ser [Page 19] Difference about a Logicall Notion (as he minceth it) the Assertor had not Observed it. But a difference (of the highest magnitude) to Contradiction, in Delivering a New way is very Remark­able. How shall we be brought to Agree with them that contradict not only one another, but one man himselfe.

Answer 1. It was not any weaknesse of the first Answer, that needed a second to Help it out, but variety of fit matter for a just Defence produced it: It need­ed no help, but to cleare it selfe from groundlesse exceptions.

Answer 2. The seeming Difference between the way and the Keyes (if any be in this point) it lyeth rather in Logi­call expressions, then in the Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise. For what ever the Different Judgments of men of our way may be, touching the first subject of the Power of the Keyes (some Placing it in the Body of the Church, others Dividing it between officers and Brethren:) yet in the Doctrine of Divi­nity we all Agree with one Accord, that [Page 20] the Church (even the Body of Church­members) have power to choose their officers, to Admit members, and to censure offenders: And that the offi­cers only have Power to Preach the word with office and Authority, and to Administer the Sacraments. And ac­cording to this unity of judgment is the uniforme Practise of our Churches. And therefore let mincing be left to curious Cookes to prepare their shread meat for queazy stomackes: or let it be left to such as would make the best of a bad cause: we neither Distrust our Cause to be of God, nor do feare any thing more then that it should be hid, and clouded with prejudices and calumnies from such as know it not, and yet seek the Truth in sincerity. And therefore let the Replyer be pleased to consider, whether the Difference be indeed any more then in a Logicall Notion: and whether they be the words not only of an Assertour, but of an Avenger, to style it a Difference of the highest magnitude? Surely if there were not some more then [Page 21] common zeale and Indignation in the cause, A Contradiction in Logicall Termes, would not be counted a Diffe­rence of the highest magnitude in Divini­ty: nor vvould such Difference in vvords so easy to be reconciled, be blovven up to so high an opposition, as a Contra­diction.

2. His second exception is, That Howsoever the first Subject is indeed a Logicall Terme, yet the matter Discour­sed is Doctrinall Divinity: And what­soever the Practise be, It is a Contradicti­on in Divinity as well as in Logick.

Answer: But I hope it hath appear­ed, there hath been found no Contradi­ction at all, neither in Logick nor in Di­vinity, though there have wanted no In­dustry to search it, nor animosity to charge it. And therefore your Question is ea­sily Answered, How shall we be brought to Agree with them, that Contradict not only one another, but one man himselfe? For here is yet no Contradiction found of one man to himselfe, nor any Appea­rance of Contradiction neither in one [Page 22] man nor other, unlesse it be only in Lo­gicall Termes, and scarce therein. But If the Replyer deferre his Agreeing with Divines or Churches, in any way of Re­ligion, till he meet with such as neither Contradict themselves, nor one another, He must neither be Protestant nor Puri­tan (as they have been called) nor of the Presbyterian, nor Congregationall way.

What if it be said (in the way, pag: 45.) The brethren of the Church might Proceed (to wit, upon just, and weighty grounds) against all their officers as well as one? yet in such cases our Churches are never wont to proceed, but in the Presence, and with the Consent and approbation of other Churches?

Why then saith he their Doctrine and Practise agree not, which is the greater Blemish.

How hard is it for a heart leavened with Prejudice to take good things in good part? A free man, sui juris (ha­ving his fathers consent) might marry a wife (if he would) without his Bre­threns consent: And for Adultery, he [Page 23] might put her away also without their Consent, And yet he will not do either, without their consent, and Approbaion. Is this mans Judgment contrary to his Practise, and is it the greater Blemish? what say we to Paul? He Received his Gospell, neither of man, nor by man. And he might have Preached it every where boldly and confidently, and have called an Anathema upon all such as had gainesayed Him, whether Angells or Apostles Gal. 1. 8, 9. yet he chose rather to go up to Jerusalem to conferre with the Apostles about his whole Go­spell Gal. 2. 1, 2. and that lest he had Runne in vaine, or should Runne in vaine. What then? shall we say Then Pauls Doctrine and Practise Agree not, which is the greater Blemish? God forbid. Chri­stian Prudence and Religious care to Prevent offence, will condescend to cleare Righteous Proceedings to all ju­dicious and equall mindes. And yet nei­ther crosse his owne judgment of his owne Right, nor blemish (but rather Honour) himselfe by Approving it to others.

[Page 24] 3. I gave a third Answer to the for­mer Charge of Contradictions, which he saith, I Added to succour both the for­mer.

But the Truth is, they need no suc­cour to Defend themselves against such exceptions: but it is an Honour to truth, to have many witnesses to attend upon it.

I said it for a third Answer, That it were no just matter of calumny, If in some latter Tractate, I should Retract or expresse more commodiously, what I wrote in a former lesse safely: as Augu­stine &c.

Whereto he Replyeth, Truly Sr, It had been no just Calumny so to do, but matter of Honour and Reputation rather. But to write Contradictions, and to take no Notice of them, till observed by others: and then to be so farre from Retracting, as to stand upon Justification of them, is nothing like Augustines Practise, and so falleth short of his Reputation.

Answer: Though Augustine Retra­cted, what he was convinced of, to be erroneous, or unsafe, yet he did not Re­tract [Page 25] what every one objected against him, (not only what Faustus, or Petilius or Julian objected, but not so much as what Jerome himselfe objected,) but justly stood upon his owne Defence. Had Vindex his objections been Con­victions, Reason, and (I hope) consci­ence, would not have suffered me to Ju­stify knowne Errours. He doth himselfe beare me witnesse, That he hath some­times heard, I have often changed my o­pinions. And (I thank God) I take it for no shame to change for the better.

But to confesse I am convinced, when I am not, and to Retract what a Stran­ger (though a Brother) conceiveth erroneous, to wit, in his Judgment, but not in mine own, It were as much as to live by another man's Faith, and not mine own: and with all to cast my selfe under that Reproach, which the Title of his Booke implicitly casteth upon me.

A wavering minded man is unstable in all his wayes.

In the conclusiō of his Preface he saith, there are in that Prefatory Epistle to the Way, [Page 26] and in that other to the keyes, other Diffe­rences observed, betweene the Author and the Prefacers, but the Author is not pleased to take Notice of them.

It is too hard perhaps to Reconcile o­thers to himselfe.

It is well if he can Reconcile himselfe to himselfe.

Ans. This is the word not of an As­sertour but of an avenger, (whose heart is hot, Deut. 19. 6.) But Though Mr Caw­dry know not so much, yet I have ta­ken Notice of those Differences, and have Advertised the Prefacers of the same, whom it concerned. My letters to them are not present at hand with me: If they were I should not think it meet to publish them. In the Preface to the keyes, the Prefacers note a Difference between me and them about the Prophe­cying of Private Brethren, concerning which I sent them word, I Discerned no Dissent at all between them and me in that Point, though they had Added a case or two of liberty, more than there they did expresse.

[Page 27] Whether it be too hard for me or no to Reconcile others with my selfe it is enough, that I keep the unity of the Spi­rit with them in the bond of Peace: and that I have learned Placidè ferre contra Sentientes.

But howsoever I hope (by the help of Christ) I shall soone Reconcile my selfe to my selfe, unlesse the Replyer can prevaile with me so farre, as to make me not only to fall out with my selfe, but to fall off from the Truth too, or else convince me that I have so fallen, and yet even so I hope the Lord will help me rather to Reconcile my selfe to the Truth, than my selfe to my selfe.

CHAP. 2.
Touching the second Pretended con­tradiction, with the 3, 4, 5.

The second Contradiction which the Replyer chargeth is delineated in the Scheme thus.

[Page 28]

2. The keyes are Given to the Church of Belie­vers, The way pag. 1. that is a combination, of Faithfull. men, as Mr. Hooker.2. The key of knowledg belon­geth to all the faithfull, whether Joyned to any par­ticular Church or no. The Keyes pag. 11.2 The key of know­ledge is given not on­ly to the Church, but to some before they enter into the Church, Keyes pag. 2.

Ans. This terme the key of know­ledge is taken from our Saviour's words, in Luk. 11. 52. Where he Reproveth the Lawyers, who had taken away the key of knowledge, and neither entred in them­selves, nor suffered others to enter. The words argue, that the entring in was not into the visible Church: for into that the Lawyers had entred, and were willing to admit others. He speaketh therefore of entring into the state of Grace, and so into the king­dome of Grace and Glory. The so­lution then is plaine and easy, The key of knowledge (or Faith) belon­geth to all the faithfull, whether Joy­ned to any particular Church or no. For by it they enter into the Kingdome of Grace and Glory. But if we speak [Page 29] of the keyes of a Particular visible Church, they are all given to the Church or Congregation of Believers.

Touching the third Contradiction.

The third Contradiction is decyphe­red thus.

3. The key of Or­der is Common to all the members of the Church: keyes pag. 8. Then say we, to Women and Chil­dren.3 It is not every place, or Order in the Church, that giveth Power to Receive Ordinances, much lesse to Dispense them, as Children and Women, Way cleared part. 2. pag. 19.

Ans. 1. It hath been Answered a­bove, that such Generall Propositions hold true, notwithstanding some knowne particular exceptions. It is appointed to all men once to Dye: which is an un­doubted Truth, though Enoch and Elias never Dyed.

Ans. 2. The Children of Church-members are in Order to Baptisme, but excluded from the Lord's Table. 1 Cor. 11. 28.

Women have some parts of the key of [Page 30] Order, whereby they have power to walke Orderly themselves, and in a pri­vate way to help others to walk Order­ly also, Act. 18. 26. Tit. 2. 3, 4, 5.

Only they have not Power to Admit members, choose Officers, censure Of­fenders. But if they have any part of the power of the keyes, the Proposition is true, yea and it were true also, though they had been kept from all Interest in the Exercise of the keyes.

Touching the fourth Contradiction.

The fourth Contradiction is thus laid out.

4. Ordination is a work of Rule. The way, pag. 49. Ordination and Jurisdi­ction (both Acts of Rule) pertaine indifferently to all the Presbyters. ibid. pag. 49.4. As for E­lection, & Or­dination of Offi­cers these things the brethren may doe (if need be) without Officers The way, pag. 45. 101.4. Ordination is not an Act of Supreme Jurisdiction, but of Order rather, Hoo­ker's Survey part. 2. 75.

Ans. Ordination, They that make the least of it make it an Act of Prayer, & such Prayer, by which the lesse is blessed of [Page 31] the greater; as it is in all Prayer which is Joyned with Imposition of hands; which Argueth, it is an Act of majority of Power: and majority of Power may without a Soloecisme be called, Rule: though not office-Rule, yet Honoura­ble preheminence. I no where call it an Act of Supreme Jurisdiction which is that Mr Hooker Denies; and seemeth to Deny it, not Positively neither, but comparatively rather. Ordination (saith he) is not an Act of Supreme Jurisdi­ction, but of Order rather, then there is no contradiction here. Nor will it be found in the other clause, for though Ordination and Jurisdiction be said (in the Way pag, 49.) to pertaine indiffe­rently to all the Presbyters: yet that is expresly spoken in opposition to the Lord Bishops, who usurped both into their own hands, as their peculiar preroga­tive: and though I say, (else where in the Way) that in Election & Ordination of Officers, the Brethren may act (if need be) without Officers: yet the very word of limitation (if need be) Argu­eth, [Page 32] that in ordinary cases, ordination per­taineth to the Presbyters, as other Acts there mentioned doe pertaine to the Presbyters, and Brethren met together: but as for Election, I take it to pertaine principally to the Brethren.

Touching the 5th Contradiction.

The 5th Contradiction followeth in this sort.


The keye of Authority, or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church, and so the Act of Rule is the pro­per Act of their office, Keyes pag. 20.

The People discerning, and approving the Justice of the censure give consent and Obedience to the will and Rule of Christ, keyes pag. 15. 37. 41.

The People stand in an Order, even an orderly Sub­jection, according to the Or­der of the Gospel, pag. 11.


In case the Officers doe Erre and give effence they shall be governed by the whole Body of the Brethren, The Way, Pag. 100.

The Church exerciseth se­verall Acts of Authority over the Elders, The Way, pag. 101.

The People have some storke of Power and Authority in the Government of the Church, pag. 36.

They Rule the Church by Appointing their own officers, ibid. pag. 16.

Ans. 1. The former Columne in all the three Places speaketh of Elders wal­king in the right Administration of their [Page 33] office then in Propriety of speech the Key of Authority and Rule is commit­ted to them 1 Tim. 5. 17. and is there made the proper Act of their office, Then it is that the People Discerning the will and Judgment of Christ in their Judgment, they do give Consent and Obedience to the will of Christ in Cen­sures Advised by them, Then it is also that they walke in orderly subjection to their Elders, Heb. 13. 17.

But the latter Columne speaketh of the Power of the Church over the El­ders chiefly in case of the Elders mal-Administration of their office, or mis­government of themselves. But then the Power which the Church putteth forth, It is not office Power (which is properly Authority:) but Potestas ho­noraria.

Answer 2. In Columne the second when it is said; The People have some stock of Power and Authority in the Go­vernment of the Church, Keyes pag. 36. They are the words of an objection, not of mine owne Assertion, And though [Page 34] some where I speak of Acts of Autho­rity over the Elders, I do clearely ex­plaine my selfe in the Keyes (pag. 36.) That Authority is taken in a large sense, and after a sort, when it is Acknowledg­ed, in the People over the Elders, As

1. When a man acteth according to his owne will freely, he is then said to be [...], Dominus sui Actus, so the People in all the Acts of liberty, which they put forth, they are Domini sui A­ctus, Lords of their owne Actions.

2. The people by sundry Acts of liberty, (as in Election of officers, in sending forth their messengers, in con­currence with their Elders, in the Ad­mission of members, and censure of Of­fenders, in the Determination and Pro­mulgation of Synodall Acts) They have a great stroke and Power in the Ordering of Church Affaires: which may be called [...], or Potestas, a Power which many times (in Common speech) goeth under the Name of Rule or Au­thority. But in proper speech, It is indeed a Priviledge, or liberty, an [...], [Page 35] or Power rather then Authority. It is a common speech usuall amongst our best Divines, That the Government of the Church is mixt of a Monarchy, an Aristocracy, and a Democracy. In re­gard of Christ the Head, the Govern­ment of the Church is Soveraigne and Monarchicall. In regard of the Rule by the Presbytery it is Stewardly and A­ristocraticall: In Regard of the Peoples Power in Elections, and censures, It is Democraticall.

Chap. 3.
Touching the sixth Con­tradiction.

The sixth Contradiction is thus Presented.


Examination is one of the highest Acts of Rule: and therefore cannot be performed, but by some Rulers. Keyes pag. 16.

The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbytery, be­cause they have not received frō Christ an office of Rule without their offi­cers, ibid.

[Page 36] No Act of the Peoples power doth properly bind unlesse the Authority of the Presbytery Joyne with it. Ibid. pag. 36.


If all their officers were found Culpable either in Hereticall Doctrine, Or in scandalous Crimes, the Church hath lawfull Autho­rity to proceed a­gainst them all. The Way, pag. 45.

In case of offence given by an Elder, or the whole Elder­ship together, the Church hath Autho­rity to require sa­tisfaction, and if they give it not, to Proceed to Cen­sure Ibid. page 101.


Excommu­nication is not an Act of the Power of office, but of judgment, Nor an Act of highest Rule but of supreame Judgment seated in the Frater­nity. Surv. part. 3. pag. 45.

As a Church of Brethren can not proceed to a­ny publick Cen­sure without the Elders so nor the Elders with­out concurrence of the People, Preface to the Keyes pag. 4.

Answer 1. Here is indeede a Discre­pance in Expressions between the Way, and the Keyes. But it was not my Act, that any such Discrepance should have been extant. The truth is, That many yeares agoe, (and some yeares before the suppressing of the Bishops in England) I was seriously moved by some of our Brethren, and fellow Elders here, to Draw up an Historicall Narration of our Church-way together with some familiar grounds of the same briefly. In short time as God Helped, I dispatched it, which when our brethren had perused, I saw they did not close with it. Yet a Brother going for England, got some where a Copy of it, and Presented it to some of the Congregationall way there: [Page 37] and I afterwards heard, that neither did they close with it: and in particular not with that Passage, which is here reci­ted, as a part of the Contradiction. Which since appeareth more openly, by the Asterisk put upon that Passage, and upon sundry other in the Book: But before I saw that, and had only heard, That they did not fully Accord, I ho­ped it had met with a timely suppressi­on, rather then an impression: for I heard no more of it, for two, or three yeares after: Meane while perceiving That one maine Point of Dissatisfacti­on, was the Authority given to the Fra­ternity, I considered more seriously and Distinctly, of the whole Power of the Keyes, and expressed my Apprehensions in that Treatise of the Keyes, which our brethren here did well Accept, and so did the brethren (of like Judgment) in England, and some of them were pleased to Attest it with the Preface which is now extant before it: yea I have heard (as well as some other of our Brethren here) by some letters from England, that [Page 38] Reverend Mr Rutherford (who was a great Part of the Assembly at West­minster) offered to the Dissenting bre­thren, That if they would come up to the Treatise of the Keyes, themselves would meet them there. But this was sundry yeares, after the Treatise of the way had been finished, and carried to England, and (as I hoped) suppressed. But it seemeth some Brother there, ha­ving got a Copy of it, being zealous of the Authority of the Fraternity, and Perceiving that their Authority was not so fully Acknowledged in the Keyes as in the Way; He caused his Copy of the Way (which was indeed abrupt in the entrance, and imperfect otherwise) to be Published in Print: which when I saw, It troubled me not a little, as knowing, That the Discrepant Expressions in the one, and in the other, might trouble friends, and give Advantage to Adver­saries. Afterwards Mr Hooker coming downe from Connectiquol, to consult with the Elders here about his Book; He pleaded seriously for the Placing of [Page 39] all Church power, primitively, in the Body of the Church, and also for their Judiciary Power of Censure over the Presbytery, suitable to what I had deli­vered in the Way; Now, though I can­not say, that his Reasons did prevaile with me, to lter the Placing of the First Subject of the Power of the Keyes, from what I had delivered in the Trea­tise of the Keyes: yet Perceiving that some mens Judgments did more Adhere as to his Judgment, so to the former course of the Way: others to that of the Keyes, I suffered both to stand as they did, especially seeing I could not help it, the Book of the Way being published without my Consent; and both the Way, and the Keyes being disperst into many hands (past my Revoking) and Refu­ted by some; So that if the Replyer find some Discrepancy in one of these bookes from the other, Let him know that the Doctrine of the Way (in such few Points wherein it differeth from the Keyes) was not then mine when the Keyes were pub­lished, much lesse when the Way was [Page 40] published, which was many yeares after, though it had been penned many yeares before. And yet take all the Discre­pancyes, and weigh them (I will not say with Candour but with Rigour) and I do not yet remember, nor can I yet find any of them, but they lye ra­ther in Difference of Logicall Notion, then in Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise, as I said before.

Answer 2. This further; let me Ac­quaint both the Replyer, and the Rea­der withall, that sometimes there hath growne a Question, amongst us whe­ther all Excommunication be an Act of Officiaria Potestas, or not some Hono­raria only? If of Officiaria, It cannot be Dispensed by the Brethren only, as the first Columne hath it. If of Hono­raria, It may, and so the second Co­lumne hath it: and then the Contradicti­on is not ejusdem.

Neither is this Censure dispensed by the brethren (as I conceive) one of the highest Acts of Rule (which is to deli­ver unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5.) but Reach­eth [Page 41] only to cast their Elders, out of Ad­ministration of office to them, and out of Church Communion with them. The Truth is, Ego libenter in eorum me nu­mero esse Profiteor, qui proficiendo Scri­bunt, & Scribendo proficiunt; which gave me occasion to Adde the third Answer given above to the first Contradiction, Some things in the way which I deliver­ed more laxly, I expresse more distinct­ly in the Treatise of the Keyes which fol­lowed after: and some things more fully and clearely, in the way cleared, then in either of the former.

Answer 3. When I say No Act of the Peoples part, doeth properly binde, unlesse the Authority of the Elder joyne with it (Keyes pag. 36.) I would be un­derstood to speak it as I meant it, of the Elders walking without offence; in the Right Administration of their office, and Conversation of their lives.

Answer 4. When Mr Hooker saith. Excommunication is not an Act of Of­fice, Power, nor of Rule, but of su­preame Judgment seated in the Fraterni­ty, [Page 42] I easily grant that the Excommuni­cation dispensed by the Fraternity is not an Act of Office-Power; But it may Justly be Inquired, whether Excommu­nication, being Dispensed by the Elders with the consent of the Church, be not an Act, as of the Churches honourable Judiciall Power, so of the Elders Office-Power, and Rule in the Church? For as the Pastorall Preaching of the Elders is Officiall, and so Authoritative, though the Preaching of other Brethren (as of the Sonnes of the Prophets) be not so: so why may there not be the like Diffe­rence, observed here? To deliver unto Satan seemeth to be an Act of Judiciall Office-Power, as when in another case it is said, The Judge delivereth a man to the Officer, and the officer casteth him in­to Prison Matth. 5. 25. He that casteth into Prison is an Inferiour officer. The Judge must therefore be a Superiour of­ficer, that delivereth an offendour to the officer, to be cast into Prison. In the Excommunication of the Incestuous Co­rinthian (where both the Elders and [Page 43] Brethren concurred) the sentence might well be delivered in Termes that ex­presse an Act of highest Authority, To deliver unto Satan. But where the Church is called to Act against their Elders (who corrupt them with false Doctrine) there the Apostle Requireth the Church, to mark them, and Avoyd them, Rom. 16. 17, 18. which may ex­presse an Act of liberty, and Judiciall Power, but not of Authority.

CHAP. 4.
Touching the seaventh, Contradi­ction and eighth.

The seaventh Contradiction is thus gathered.

7. It was a Sacrilegious Breach of Order, That Com­missaries and Chancellours wanting the Key of Order (no Ministers) have been invested with Jurisdiction. Yea and more then Ministe­riall Authority, above those Elders, who labour in word and Doctrine. The Keyes pag. 16.7. There is a Key of Pow­er given to the Church (with the Elders) as to open a doore of entrance to the Mi­nisters calling, so to shut the doore of entrance against them in some cases &c. The Keyes p. 9. Yea to Censure all their Elders (without Elders) The Way p. 45. as before.

[Page 44] Ans. The power given to the Com­missaries Chancellors &: I justly called a Sacrlegious Breach of Order in more Re­spects than one.

1. In that being no Ministers, they exercised more than Ministeriall Autho­rity over the Elders. For Ministers doe not exercise Authority over Elders, no nor over any Brother, but with consent of the Church. But these doe it with­out, and against the Consent of the Church.

2. In that they exercise this Autho­rity even in Churches wherein they have not Received the key of Order, and so stand not so much as in the Order of Members amngst them.

3. In that they proceed against them, not for crimes committed against the word of God, but for Neglect of Po­pish-Canons or Humane Traditions.

But now no Authority allowed to Brethren either in the Keyes or in the Way, cometh neere to this Breach of Order.

For 1. In Joyning with the Elders [Page 45] to open a doore of entrance to Mi­nister's calling, They put forth no Act of Authority (properly so called) at all: but only exercise a liberty and Power orderly which they have Recei­ved from the Lord Jesus, to elect their own officers, As the Peoples election of Deacons (Act. 6. 2. to 5th.) And their lifting up of hands in the choice of Elders (Act. 14. 23.) doth declare. And when they doe shut them forth it is not without their Elders, where their Elders are not wanting, or not wanting to their Duty. And even then, they put forth no Act of Office Rule, or Au­thority (properly so called) as the Commissaries doe, but only an Act of Judiciall Power common to the whole Church, 1 Cor. 5. 12.

2. The People do exercise this Pow­er only in their own Church where themselves are members, and have Re­ceived a key of Order.

3. They proceed not against any, much lesse against their Elders, but for notorious offences, committed against [Page 46] the word of God, in Doctrine or life, so that this Contradiction speaketh as lit­tle ad idem as any of the former.

Touching the 8th Contradiction.

The 8th Contradiction is represented thus.

8. We are so farre from Allowing that Sa­crilegious usurpation of the Ministers office, That private Christi­ans ordinarily take upon them to Preach the Go­spell Publickly, The Keyes, pag 6.8. This is ordinarily Pra­ctised in England, and Allow­ed by the Independant Brethren. Yea they being but in the Notion of Gifted Brethren, no Ministers to other Congregations, doe it or­dinarily themselves.

Ans. 1. This Contradiction is not of me to my selfe, but of some others, who whether they be Independants truly so called, I doe not know: sure I am, that Presbyterians and Independants are not membra Dividentia, though I see, that all that are not for Popery, or Episco­pacy, or Presbytery, doe commonly lurke under the style of Independancy. I hope the Replyer would be loth to Re­nounce the Protestant Religion, because [Page 47] there are found some contradictions, and greater than these, in one of them to another.

Ans. 2. When I call it a Sacrilegious usurpation for Private Christians Ordi­narily to take upon them to Preach the Gospell Publickly, & to Administer the Sacraments; yet this latter of Admini­string the Sacraments the Replyer leaveth out, and so the Contradictiction is not ad idem: which is a Common failing in this, and the rest. For I would not say that it is a Sacrilegious usurpation, for well gifted Brethren (where ordai­ned Ministers cannot be had) there to Preach ordinarily and Publickly, es­pecially if they be Approved by those that have Power, and requested there­to by the People, wherein I goe further in giving way to the Prophecying of Private Brethren, than my Reverend Brethren (the Prefacers to the Keyes) doe, who only Allow them to Preach occasionally, and not ordinarily, which I speak only to this end, That the Reply­er and others may know, there is more [Page 48] consent and Agreement in our Judg­ments, then they take notice of, or sometimes our selves either. But if Private Brethren doe Administer the Sa­craments at all whether ordinarily, or Occasionally, It seemeth to me like the Fact of Uzziah in offering Incense.

CHAP. 5.
Touching the 9th Contradiction.

The 9th Contradiction is layd out thus.

9. A Particular Church of Saints Profes­sing the Faith (that is mem­bers without offices) is the first subject of all the Church. Offices, with all their Spiri­tuall Gifts & Power, Keyes pag. 31.9. As the keyes of the kingdome of Hea­ven are divers, so are the Subjects to whom they are committed di­verse, keyes pag. 11. The Apostles were the first subject of Apo­stolicall power. ibid. pag. 32. A Synod is the first Subject of that Power whereby Errour is convinced, and condemned. ibid. pag. 47.9. The Power of the keyes belongeth firstly to a Congregation of Covenanting Belie­vers, Surv. part. [...]. p. 219. The Power of the keyes is in the Church of Believers, as in the first subject. ib. p. 195 That conceite is wide to make one first sub­ject of this power, & yet others to share in this power, not by meanes of that, for this is to speak dag­gers, and Contradi­ctions. ibid.

[Page 49] Ans: 1. This is one of those Differen­ces, of which I spake before, that ly­eth rather in Logicall Notion, than ei­ther in Doctrine of Divinity, or in Church Practise. Against which the ex­ception made above, hath been An­swered above, in clearing the first Contradiction.

Ans. 2. There is no colour of Contra­diction betweene the two former Co­lumnes. For when I say A Particular Church is the first Subject of all the Church Officers and their Gifts, I speak not of this or that particular Church, (which is but an Individuall) but of a Particular Church taken Indefinite­ly, which (by meere errour of the Prin­ter) is without sence said, taken Indepen­dently, which is the Disadvantage of us, who live so far remote from the Presse, that we can neither prevent their mista­kes nor correct them afterwards. But take a Particular Church Indefinitely & it comprehendeth all Particular Churches: And that God hath given to Particular Churches all spirituall officers together [Page 50] with their Gifts, for the Discharge of their offices, is Proved by evident Texts of Scripture, in that very Page of the Keyes 31. I doe not say (as some doe) that the Church meaning the Fraternity is the first subject of all spirituall Gifts (for then they had received them im­mediately without officers:) but I say the offices and Officers, not devoid of Gifts, but furnished with their gifts, are given by Christ to the Church freely, and not to any other Person or Society, from whom the Church Receiveth them.

But this no whit crosseth, what is said in the second Columne, That Elders are the first Subjects of ordinary Ministe­riall Power, and Apostles of Apostoli­call Power, and Synods, of Synodicall Power. A wife may be the first sub­ject of her own Dowry, but yet her Hus­band is the first Subject Recipient of his wife with her Dowry.

Ans. 3. As for what is said different­ly by my Brother Hooker in the third Co­lumne, as his Person and Gifts and [Page 51] Friendship were pretious and deare to me whilest he lived: so now that he re­steth in Glory, his Name and memory, and labour (saving some very few pri­vate Notions) are honourable, and blessed, with me, and I suppose with all that knew him. But in this Logicall Notion, I crave leave, not so much to dissent from him (for he herein Dis­sented from me, who wrote first, rather than I from him) but leave I crave not to Retract what I formerly wrote in the Keyes touching this Point, though I should as much suspect mine own judg­ment, where he Dissenteth from me, as where any man. It is true he taketh the Church of Covenanted Believers to be the first Subject of the power of the keyes, vvhich if he meane no more, than that they have all Church-Power ei­ther formaliter, or Radicaliter, and Virtualiter, then there is no Difference in our expressions; but if he meane that that they are the first Subject of all Church-Povver properly, two or three things Detaine me from consen­ting [Page 52] with him herein. 1. That vvhich is the first Subject of any Povver Re­ceiveth it immediately vvithout any o­ther Intervening Subject. As fire be­ing the first Subject of Heate, Recei­veth not his Heate from any former Subject. But it is evident, That ma­ny a Church of Believers, hath not Re­ceived Pastorall Gifts, nor it may be any Gifts fit for office, 'till they fetch them from other Churches, and sometimes from some who are not members of any Particular Church at all.

2. The first Subject of any Power, as it hath immediately Received it: so it may immediately exercise it: as Fire (the first subject of Heate) can Heate without Intervention of any other sub­ject.

But the Church hath not Power im­mediately to exercise Pastorall Preach­ing, or Administration of the Sacra­ments, 'till it have procured and chosen, and called forth some or other Gifted Persons to exercise the same.

3. I might Adde a third Reason to [Page 53] both the former. Whatsoever is pro­perly the first Subject of any Power, It hath that same Power, or some other e­quivalent, and analogicall to it, not on­ly radicaliter and virtualiter, but For­maliter also. And because formaliter, therefore radicaliter and virtualiter. For whatsoever is in any Subject Firstly, (whether it be proper Adjunct, or proper effect, or any other proper Ar­gument) it either floweth from the forme, or from the matter so formed; As for instance, capacity of Learning, or Risibility is in Man, as in the first sub­ject. The former floweth from the Reasonable soule: the latter from the matter of a man so formed. But nei­ther of these are in man radicaliter or virtualiter, but only because they are in a man formally, and so either flow from the forme, or from the matter so for­med. Take another Instance, and of a­nother sort. The People that have power to elect a King, though they have not formally kingly power, yet have they a formall Power, to submit [Page 54] themselves to Kingly Power. And so haveing a formall Power to put one of the Relatives, they have an aequiva­lent and Analogicall Power to put the o­ther Correlative. For, Posito uno Re­latorum, Ponitur etiam & alterum.

As for that which is quoted by the Replyer from Mr Hooker, in the last clause of the third Columne of this con­tradiction, I see not how it concer­neth me, or contradicteth any thing in the former Columnes. For I doe not make any first Subject of Church-Power, and yet others to share in that Power, but not by meanes of that. But as the keyes of the kingdome of heaven are diverse: So I see no Inconvenience, that the first Subjects to whom the severall keyes are committed, may be diverse also. Neither doth the letter of the Text seeme to me to gainesay that, Mat. 16. 18. For though it speak, not to Them but to Thee; a Representing one state or Condition of men: yet say that one condition to be believers and take Be­lievers in a large sence, It comprehen­deth [Page 55] all sorts of Professing Believers, whether Private members, or Elders, or Apostles, indeed all. But neither doe I see any convincing reason seeing Peter stood in a threefold Ecclesiasticall Re­lation (being both an Apostle, and an Elder, & a Profest Believer) why Christ committing the keyes to him (saying to Thee will I give them) might not Intend to give all the keyes; and the severall sorts of them, according to the severall Relations he stood in.

If it be said All that share in the sub­ject to whom the keyes are Given (in these words, To Thee) they all share alike in the same equall Power of the keyes, because they have all the same Commission: I Answer it would indeed so follow, If there were no other severall Commissions, granted in Scripture else where, but only here; But cleare it is from other Scriptures, That Power of Authorita­tive Preaching, and Administering the Sacraments, is Given only to Apostles, Elders, and such like officers: but Pow­er [Page 56] of Priviledge and Judgment, is given all the Fraternity.

CHAP. 6.
Touching the 10th Contradiction with the 11th 12th 13th.

The 10th Contradiction is thus held forth.

10. Pastour and Flocke are Relates: and so he is a Pastour to none but his owne Congrega­tion. This is the Common Tenent.10. The mem­bers of any Church we Adm [...]t t [...] the Lords Table (if they bring letters testi­moniall.) and their Children to Bap­tisme. The Way p. 68. The Keyes, p. 17.10. Admini­stration of Sacra­ments is a Ministe­riall Act: and what Authority hath a Pa­stour to do it, or they to Receive it from him to whom he is no Pastour? Mr. Hocker Surv. Part. 2. 64, 65. Pastours and Teachers might Pray and Preach in other Churches besides their owne: but not Administer seales and Censures. Bartlets Modell pag. 63.

Answer 1. That Appearance of Con­tradiction is easily Removed, if our Do­ctrine and Practise be knowne, as it is, what a Pastour doeth in his owne Con­gregation, and to his owne Flock, he doeth it by Pastorall Power, and Au­thority, [Page 57] what he doth to the members of other Churches, abroad, or out of his own Congregation, He doeth it not Authoritativè, but Precariò, and not in a constant, but in a transient way: which the communion of Churches doth not only Admit, but readily (as occa­sion serveth) Desire. What Mr Hooker doubted of in this Point, he Answereth himselfe in the end of the same Pag. 65.

If Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, things present and things to come, be all Given to the Particular Church of Corinth (1 Cor. 3. 22.) who yet had no pecu­liar Interest in them more then other Churches. By the same Right all the officers, and all their Gifts are theirs al­so, in the same way. Theirs they are not [...], (for each Church hath his peculiar offices, as their owne proprie­ty): Then they are theirs [...], for their use, not Authoritatively, nor Or­dinarily, but occasionally, as God gi­veth opportunity; Ordinarily as the Officers must attend to their owne Flock, so must the Flock Depend upon their [Page 58] owne Officers. The officers have no Au­thority over any Flock, but that which the Holy Ghost hath committed to them: Neither can any other Flock command the employment of any of their Gifts, or any act of their office a­mongst them. But upon occasion, in a transient way, as they may have need of their Gifts, so they may have need of some Act of their Office, and accord­ingly may Desire it, and Receive it.

The 11th Contradiction which is thus set forth.


We Receive the Sa­crament of the Lords Supper (say the same of 'Baptisme) as a se [...]le of Communion, not only with the Lord Jesus in our owne Churches but in all the Churches of the Saints, Keyes pag. 17. Del. of 9. Posit pag. 133, 134.


Baptisme (and so the other Sacrament) sealeth up the Externall Communion with a Particular Church &c. Mr H. Surv. Part. 3. pag. 27.

And he disputes against it, as to the Catholick Church.

Answer: When we say, that the Sa­craments are Seales of Communion with the Lord Jesus not only in our owne Church, but in all the Churches of the [Page 59] Saints, we do not meane that they seale up the same measure of Externall Com­munion with other Churches, as with our owne. They do not seale up this Communion, That their officers are our officers, and we their Flock: Or that we have the same Power over them, which we have over our owne members. This were to seale up not a Communi­on but a Confusion of Churches; And this is that which Mr Hooker in the place alledged doeth deny as our selves also do.

The 12th Contradiction is thus declared.

12. It is an Act of the Elders Power and Autho­rity to Examine whether Of­ficers, or members, before they be Received of the Church, Keyes pag 21.12. As for Admission, Election, Ordination of Of­ficers, Admission or shutting out of Members, these things the Brethren may do without officers, The Way p. 45. 101

Answer: The Answer is Obvious, what the Elders do in this kind, Ex Of­ficio, The Church may do the like in the want of Elders.

The 13th Contradiction is set be­fore us thus.

13. Ordination is then Compleat when the Peo­ple hath Chosen an Offi­cer, and the Presbytery hath laied their Hands on him, Keyes p. 37.13. But if the Church want a Presbytery, for want of Elders they want a warrant to Repaire to the Presbytery of another Church to Impose hands upon their Elect Elders, Way, p. 50.

Answer: In that Place of the Keyes, I only Assert and Prove, That a man of Sufficient Gifts chosen by the Peo­ple of the Church, and Ordained by the Presbytery of his owne Church, wanteth nothing to the compleat Inte­grity of his calling. The Right hand of Fellowship given by the Elders of other Churches expresseth their Approbati­on of his calling, but addeth nothing to the essence, or Integrity of his cal­ling.

But when I say that in want of a Presbytery of their owne, they want a warrant to Repaire to the Presbyte­ry of another Church for his Ordina­tion, I no where say, That the Officer [Page 61] Elected, wanteth the complete Inte­grity of his calling, for want of the Im­position of hand, of the Presbytery of another Church. And yet that had been requisite to make up a pretence of a Contradiction. The Replyer knoweth that a Church wanting a Presbytery of their owne to lay hands upon an Elect Officer in our Judgment, they may appoint some of the Elders and graver Members of their owne Body, to sup­ply the Defect of their owne Presby­tery; which we Account sufficient to the completing of his calling in such a case.

But when I said (in the Way) That the Church wanting a Presbytery, they wanted a warrant to Repaire to the Pres­bytery of another Church to Impose hands upon their Elect Elders, I meant in way of Subordination to an Extrin­secall Power. For it is against that which both the Reasons Plead, which I there Alleadged for that Purpose. But I no where dislike, That a Church wan­ting a Presbytery of their owne may [Page 62] send for Elders of other Churches, to Assist them, and to Joyne with them in the Ordination of their Elect Offi­cers.

CHAP. 7.
Touching the 14th Contradiction with 15. and 16.

The 14th Contradiction is thus laied out.

14. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained to that Office (of Apo­stleship) by the Im­position of hands of some officers or Members of the Church, Way, p. 45.14. In Act. 13. 2, 3. There is no Ordi­nation to Office at all: for the Apostles had their office before Mr. Hooker, Surv. Part. 2. p. 83. This was not to put a new office up­on them, but to con­firme their sending to the Gentiles ib. p. 60.14. This was done in a Par­ticular Church Keyes, p. 29. The officers of one Church did what was done in an ordinary Way, Surv. Parr. 2. p. 83. Then it follow­eth (by Mr. C.) his Doctrine that the Apostles who were officers in all Churches were ordained in a Particular Church: or that officers of a Church may be ordained in another Church: which he said was unwarrantable.

Ans. 1. When I say (in the Way) That Paul and Barnabas, were ordained [Page 63] to the Apostolick office by Imposition of hands of some officers of the Church at Antioch (Act. 13. 1, 2, 3.) It is not Disproved (by Mr Hooker) saying that they had had their office before. For I noe where say, That ordination Giveth the office, but only Approveth it and Solemnely, (as it were) Installeth the elect officer into it, and sendeth him forth with a Blessing into the Admini­stration of it. Neither when he saith, That there is there no Ordination unto office at all, doth he contradict what I affirme, For his meaning is, to Deny it in Mr Rutherford's sence, who speaketh there of Ordination, as Giving the cal­ling unto the office: which Mr Hooker Disproveth, and therein I concurre with him. For it puts no New office upon them, but Bare witnesse to that calling, which the Holy Ghost had given them.

When Mr Hooker saith, The Officers of one Church did what was done in an ordinary way, He himselfe inferreth the consequence, Therefore it is no Prece­dent for the Pastors of many Churches, [Page 64] what either they may or should doe.

But the Inferences which Mr Cawdry gathereth, as from my Doctrine out of that Text, either will not hold, or not hurt our cause. For this Inference will not hold, That then the Officers of one Chuch may be ordained in another.

For they were as much Officers of the Church of Antioch, as of any other Churches, It will only inferre, That they who are officers in many Churches, may be Ordained in any one of them.

The other inference will in part follow That some of the Apostles (who were Officers in all Churches) may be Or­dained in a Particular Church, when the Holy Ghost calleth for it. For they Act now not in their own Name, or Power, but in the great Name, and Soveraigne Power of the Lord Jesus, who is the Head of all Churhes.

But what Prejudice is that to our cause? or wherein doth it contradict a­ny of our Tenents?

The 15th Contradiction is thus Declared.

15. What if the whole Pres­bytery offend? The readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod, the keyes pag. 43.15. There is a readier and nearer way; The Brethren may censure them all, Way pag. 45. If the Congregation be found faithfull and willing to Remove an offence by due censure, why should the of­fence be called up to a more publicke Ju­dicature. Keyes pag. 42.

Ans. This Contradiction is made part­ly out of the concealment of Part of my words in the first Columne, and Partly out of the Addition of some words of his own in the second Columne. In the former Columne I say, If the whole Pres­bytery offend, or such a Part as will draw a Party, and a Faction in the Church with them, the readiest course then is, to bring the matter to a Synod where those words, such a Part as will draw a Party, or Faction in the Church with them, are given for the just Reason, why in such a case, the case of the offending Presby­tery, or other such Leading members [Page 66] in the Church should be brought to a Sy­nod, before it be censured in the Church. But in the words recited in the latter Columne, I speak of the Congregation as Agreeing together, and both faithfull and willing to Proceed against Hereti­call Doctrine and Scandalous crimes in whomsoever. And then they need not Trouble the Synod to cleare the case, which is already cleare unto themselves, so that this Contradiction speaketh not ad Idem. The one Columne speaketh of a Church, Divided into parts and Factions, and their readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod. The se­cond Columne speaketh of a Church both faithfull and willing to Proceede against offences with one accord. And then they have sufficient Power within them­selves, to judge that which is right, and to execute their Judgment. That which is Added of the Replyers own words, in the latter Columne, doth help not a little to make up an Appearance of the Contradiction. In the Keyes I had sayd (In the case above mentioned) [Page 67] It is the readiest course to bring the matter to the Synod. In the Way he quoteth my words, as if I had said, There is a readier and nearer way. The Brethren may censure them all. If these words had been mine, there had been an Appearance of Contradiction.

To say this is the readyest course, and yet to say, a Discrepant course is a rea­dier and nearer way, is (at least, verbo tenus) an apparent Contradiction. But the Truth is, Those words are none of mine, but the Replyers own. And so it will be an easy matter to make up Con­tradictions (tot quot) if we may take leave, in one sentence to conceale Part of the words necessary to make up the sense, and in another sentence to Adde words of our owne.

The 16th Contradiction is delive­red thus.

16. It belongeth to the civill Magistrate, to establish pure Reli­gion, in Doctrine, worship and Govern­ment: partly by civill Punishment upon the wilfull oppressours, and Disturbers of the same. Keyes p. 50.16. Yet the Bre­thren here call for, or Tolerate Toleration of all Opinions, and Deny the magistrate Power to Punish any Preten­ding conscience Bart­lets Model, pag. 128.16. See Mr. Bartlets Modell p. 25. Contrà

Ans. 1. This Contradiction laboureth of the same Disease (as the rest gene­rally Doe) It speaketh not ad Idem. Such as require the Magistrate to esta­blish Pure Religion, in Doctrine, wor­ship and Government, and to Restraine the willfull opposers and Disturbers thereof by civill Punishments, They speak of Fundamentals in Religion, and such opinions as apparently tend to li­bertinisme, and licentious ungodlynesse, as Mr Bartlet expresseth it, Modell pag. 126.

But the Toleration which they Allow [Page 69] and call for, is of such opinions, as neither subvert the Foundation of Religion, nor Practise of Piety. Both these may be maintained without the least shew of the face of Contradiction. Further I find this in Mr Bartlet, That himselfe and some others are not free, That Hereticks should be put to Death, in case they keep their errors to themselves, and doe not seek to seduce, and corrupt others. And though I grant, that such an Heretick after once or twice Admonition may be Rejected out of the Church (according to Titus 3. 10, 11.) yet I doe not finde, that Moses condemned them unto Death, unlesse they became blasphemers, or Ido­lators, or Seducers to Idolatry. What Christ, and Moses doe both of them To­lerate, the Servants of Christ need not to be ashamed of such Toleration.

Ans. 2. This Contradiction (for ought I can Discerne) laboureth also Crimine falsi. For it seemeth a manifest untruth, what he speaketh in Columne 2. That the Brethren call for, or To­lerate Toleration of all opinions, and [Page 70] Deny the magistrate Power to punish any Pretending conscience, Mr Bartlet Alledged for the proofe hereof, p. 128. saith no such thing, And the contrary he proveth, from the expresse Testimony of Mr Burroughs, Mr Thomas Goodwin, & others of that way.

The 8th Chapt.
Touching the 17th Contradiction with 18. 19.

The 17th Contradiction is thus set forth.

17. Visi­ble Saints though they be Hypo­crites in­wardly, are the matter of a visible church. Mr. Hook. part. 1. p. 14. 15.17. You say Saints in outward Profession are the matter of a Con­gregationall Church: we judge that reall Saints uttering in Discourse the Brea­things of the Holy Spirit, and experi­ences of conversi­on, interested in a stricter conversation to be the matter. Dr. Holmes Epistle to Way cleared. pag. 4.Mr. Bartlet speaketh something (this lan­guage) Can there be Ability for spirituall & holy services, where the spirit is not yet given? Can there be communion between light and Darknesse? Can they edify one another in the Faith, that have not the work of Faith wrought in them? Modell. p. 57. See more pag. 103.

Ans. What Mr Hooker's Judgment [Page 71] was, is expressed in that first Columne: what mine own, is declared, and I hope, cleared in the Holynesse of Church-mem­bers. What Dr Holmes and Mr Bartlet doe further require in it, they Declare what Church-members ought to be de ju­re, especially in their first constitution, rather then what they are, or are wont to be de facto, especially in their Declen­sion. Againe I see Mr Bartlet speaketh in opposition to the members of the Pa­rish Churches, who are in many places Ig­norant, loose, profane and scandalous li­vers, who are not indeed visible Saints, pag. 56.

It is true there is some work of the Spirit, where ever there is a visible Saint. But the Spirit giveth many Gifts to the edification of others (as to Judas and De­mas) which often doe not reach to the Regeneration of him that Receiveth them.

The 18th Contradiction is thus sta­ted.

18. The forme of the visible Church is the Covenant, ei­ther explicite, or implicite: and the latter is sometimes fully sufficient Mr. H. Surv. part. 1. pag. 47. 48 and o­thers.18. You say an implicit uniting, viz. A walking and communicating with you is a sufficient evidencing of the Forme: we say, Their folemne confession of their faith & expresse open covenanting with the Lord to wake with such a body of Saints, in all the wayes of Christ to be the mani­fest Forme. D. Holmes ibid.18. It is not generall Profes­sion will serve the turne, but there must be a peculiar engagement and appropriation to this or that parti­cular body, Mr. H. Surv. pag 63. Yet he said An Implicite Cove­nant was suffi­cient.

Ans. The expressions of Mr H. quo­ted in Columne 1: and Columne 3: will not amount to an opposition of himselfe, much lesse to a Contradiction. For though he make an Implicite Covenant sufficient, yet a generall Profession will not serve the turne; to make an Implicite Covenant. For an Implicite Covenant must be with Reference to this or that particular Body: or else it is neither Co­venant at all, nor Implicite. A Generall [Page 73] Profession entreth not any man into any Relation with any Church, unlesse he offer himselfe to Joyne with them as Mr Hooker in that Place more largely, & tru­ly openeth himselfe. Neither doth Dr Holms his expression contradict him. For he that maketh the explicite Covenant the manifest forme of the Church, He doth not gainesay the implicite covenant to be a real Forme of the Church, though not so manifest but more obscure.

The 19th Contradiction is thus de­lineated.


We crave leave of the Authour of the keyes, To Declare that we Assent not to all ex­pressions, or all and every Assertion in it: As in these Particu­lars. About the Pro­thesying of Private Brethren.

2. That the Assem­bly (Act. 15.) was a Formall Syned.

3. That the Apostles Acted in it, as Ordi­nary Elders, Preface to Keyes. pag. 6.


We doe in this Epistle certifie our Assent to the way of the Churches of New England. saving that we doe not fully close with some expressions passim in the Bock: be­fore some of which (10 at least, belike there are more) we minded to Note a star in the Margin. This we could not but say and doe (pace Authoris) or we could not Assent, Epistle to the Way pag. 2.


Yet they are an­gry that we call for a fuller Decla­ration of themselves, Epistle to the Way. p. 1. and Epi­stle to the Way cleared pag. 2.

[Page 74] Answer: 1. Though my reverend Brethren crave leave to dissent from me in some expressions (which they may safely and freely do without my leave, for I professe my spirit subject to the Prophets:) yet about the Prophecying of private Brethren, I must againe Pro­fesse as I did before, That I do not know, wherein I Dissent from them: unlesse it be that I Allow somewhat more li­berty to the Prophecying of private Bre­thren, then they do. The Allowance, which they give is with foure limitati­ons.

1. That is be done occasionally, and not in ordinary course.

2. By men of such Abilities, as are fit for office.

3. Not assuming this to themselves, but as they are allowed, and designed to it by such, as have Power.

4. That their Doctrine be subjected to the Teaching Elders of the Church. Graunt these limitations, and I never scrupled (to my remembrance) the liberty of Prophecying by private Bre­thren, [Page 75] yea this liberty I should further graunt, that though the private Bre­thren be not furnished, with abilities fit for publick office, yet there may be oc­casion, to call them forth to exercise their gifts; as in the suddaine sicknesse or absence of the Minister, and other officers, why may not a private brother be called forth by the Church, or stir­red up by the Spirit of God in himselfe to stand up, and with leave, instruct and exhort the Church, to make a Sancti­fyed use of such a suddaine stroke of Providence? Or what if a private Bro­ther of good credit in the church shall observe the Doctrine of the Ministers not so much válued as were meet? why may he not take occasion, to speak some words of encouragement, and confirma­tion, both to the Minister and to the Congregation? Jehosaphat's Nobles, though Princes, yet were but as Private Brethren in the Church, as bearing no Publick Church-office: yet they taught in the Cities of Juda, what Respect was due to the Ministery of the Levites, [Page 76] whom they brought with them, when my beloved Brethren do not acknow­ledge the Assembly of Apostles, El­ders, and Brethren Acts 15. To have been a formall Synod of Messengers sent out of a set and combined Associa­tion from neighbour churches, They do not herein Dissent from me. For the two Churches of Antioch and Je­rusalem were too farre remote to stand in a set, or combined Association, and therefore they may well deny it to be a Formall Synod, according to the Forme of Synods now in use in Presbyteriall Churches. But that that assembly had the true matter and forme of a just Synod, As I do believe it, so I do not see that my Brethren deny it. For the efficient cause of the Synod, the Church of An­tioch sent messengers: and the Church of Jerusalem (whose officers were sent unto) they freely gave them a meeting, and the Church with them. For the matter of the Synod, they had the Mes­sengers, officers, and Brethren of both Churches met together in the Name of [Page 77] Christ. It is not necessary to the being of a Synod the convention of the Mes­sengers and members of many Churches, The convention of two Churches (by themselves or messengers) may make a Synod. If the convention of one Church may make a Synagogue, why may not the convention of two churches make a Synod? The forme of a Synod they had, in Arguing, and disputing the case in hand, and freely giving in their Judgments from scripture grounds, and at length determining the whole cause with the Joynt consent of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, and Publishing the same by letters, and messengers to all the churches whom it concerned. The establishment of Peace and Truth in the churches, was the end of this Sy­nod, as it ought to be the end of all. It is true, here was a consultation, in that the church of Antioch sent for coun­sell: and the Apostles and Elders met to consult, and consider of the matter. But consultation was but one Act of the As­sembly, many other Formall Acts of a [Page 78] Synod they put forth besides, which have been specified. The Apostles though they did put forth some Acts of their Apostolicall Power, in helping to cleare the Truth by explayning obscure Scrip­tures, and in Ratifying the conclusion with some greater Plerophory of the mind of the Holy Ghost: yet in Putting such things to Argumentation, and Dispu­tation, and allowing Elders and Brethren liberty of Putting in their votes, and determining, and publishing the sen­tence, in the Name and with the com­mon consent of all, herein they Acted as Ordinary Elders and messengers of churches, might and ought to do.

The Notes of about Ten Passages in the Way, wherein our Reverend Brethren in England (or some of them) say they could not fully close with them, with­out Affixing an Asterisk to them, If I knew where, the Pinch of the Difficulty lay, I would Addresse my selfe, to give them fuller satisfaction either by conde­scending to them, or giving them just Reason why I could not. Meane while [Page 79] I have learned (through Grace) not to fall out with my Brethren, for grea­ter differences in judgment, then those be.

That which is added in the third Co­lumne, that they are offended (and, as you call it, Angry with you) for that you call for a fuller Declaration of them­selves, for that, themselves can best give you an Account: for

1. It may be, they think it needlesse to Publish further declaratiōs, because over & above the former Declarations, there have been since published three, or foure Pithy Pregnant Declarations of the same Argument; as Mr Hookers surv: Mr Nor­tons Answer to Apollonius, the Synod at Cambridge, the Defence of the An­swer to the nine Questions.

2. It may be they feare, If they should publish more declarations in this case, It would Adde rather more Few­ell to contention, then Prevaile with the Spirits of men, contrary minded to Re­ceive satisfaction.

CHAP. 9.
Touching the 20th Contradiction and 21.

The 20th Contradiction is thus Ex­pressed.

20. It is gene­rally asserted by them, that one Church hath not Power to Censure another.20. A Synod hath Power to Deter­mine, to withdraw Communion from them, if they cannot heale them, Keyes, pag. 24.20. The sentence of non Communion denounced against whole Churches A­polog. Narrat. p. 18, 19. If a Sen­tence denounced it is a Censure.

Answer: To withdraw Communion from a church, is no more an Act of Power over a church, then it was to Joyne in Communion with them. Com­munion and non-Communion are Acts of the same power: both of them Acts of priviledge or liberty. And if with­drawing Communion be not an Act of censure, then to determine so to with­draw, is no Act of an higher Nature.

[Page 81] Though a Censure is a sentence denoun­ced, yet every sentence denounced is not a Censure, unlesse it be Denounced by an higher power, then that of equalls. When the Ten Tribes denounced their Rejection of service to David's House (1 Kings 12. 16.) It was not a censure more then theirs, who solemnely Reje­cted the Rule of Christ: we will not have this man to Rule over us, Luk. 19. 14.

The last Contradiction is declared thus.


We Say Insti­tuted worship and Or­dinances do not flow immediatly from spiri­tuall union, and Rela­tion to Christ, and his members &c. Def. of 9. Pos. pag. 76.

He must come at them in a right Order, to w [...]t in Fellowship of the Church Surv. pag. 2.


Then it follow­eth, that Hearing the word Preached Sing­ing of Psalmes and Baptisme, belong not to any, but such as are members of a Particu­lar Congregation.

And yet they say Or­dinarily hearing it no signe of a Church mem­ber, Surv. part. 1. pag. 18.


A Per­son hath his first Right to the Sacra­ment (and so to other Ordinances, because He hath an In­terest in the Covenant of the Gospell, Surv. part. 1. pag. 65.

[Page 82] Answer: Here is no semblance of Contradiction; Mr Hooker Surv. saith, a Person hath his first Right to a Sacra­ment, because he hath an interest in the covenant of the Gospell. The defence saith he hath not immediate Right till he be a member of a Particular Congre­gation. And so saith the Survey too, in the Place Alledged. If Immediate Right, and first Right were all one, there were some colour for the Exception: but it is farre otherwise; in having Christ, we have a first Right to all things, but not an Immediate Right but in Gods way.

But neither hence will it follow, that Instituted Ordinances; as hearing the word, Singing of Psalmes, belong to none but to members of a Particular Congregation. For though they be gi­ven to such firstly, and Immediately: yet for their sakes to all that come in amongst them. The Childrens Table and the Pro­visions thereof is first Allowed to the Children of the Family; yet in a Boun­tifull House-keepers Family, such part [Page 83] of the Pro [...]sions may be Allowed to strangers, as they may be fit to par­take in.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.