Objections Answered.

I. Object. Rev. Chap. 2. Chap. 3. None of the seven Churches of Asia in the Epistles, to them were com­manded to withdraw their Communion, or separate themselves from any of those Per­sons among them, which the Holy Ghost charged with Evil. And therefore neither Churches from any of their Members, nor any Members from their Churches, should separate themselves from one anothers full Communion at the Lords Table, unless it be for gross and scandalous Evils.

Answer: If this Argument holdeth good and warrantable for Persons and Churches to keep their Communion at the Lords Ta­ble, under the Guilt and Non-repentance of lesser Evils; it will also justifie such Communion with those that are guilty of grosser Sins. For the Church of Pergamos had them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, Ch. 2.14. who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block be­fore the Children of Israel, to eat things sacri­ficed unto Idols, and to commit Fornication. [Page 22]And this was also the Sin of the Church in Thyatira, Ver. 24, 25. to whom its said, That unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this Doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Stan, as they speak, I will put upon you none other burthen. But that which you have already hold fast till I come. And therefore, seeing the Church of Thyratira suffered that Woman Jezebel to seduce the Servants of Christ,Ver. 20. to commit Fornication, and to eat things sa­crificed to Idols (which must be meant in honour to them,1 Cor. 8.9, 10. Ch. 10.27, 28, 29. for otherwise Meats sacri­ficed to Idols were not unlawful to eat, tho' sometimes not expedient for the sake of weak Brethren) then surely the rest that escaped those Pollutions, and had no other burthen put upon them, than to hold fast that they had already, cannot rationally be thought then to be in the same Communion with those Idolaters and Fornicators,Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. for such have no Inheritance in the Kingdom of God.1 Cor. 5.2, 4, 5. Besides, we have an Instance of a Fornicator that was separated from the Church, or delivered up unto Satan. So that tho' there is no express command in the Epistles to those seven Churches of Asia, for withdrawing their Communion from a­ny evils mentioned therein; yet doubtless it was their Duty from other Precepts then written, to cast out those that were guilty of such notorious Sins, as were in some of those Churches: And those Christians of Thyatira, which the Holy Ghost commen­ded, that were in the same City with those [Page 23]that were reproved (and perhaps originally in full Communion together in one Body) it is rational to believe were separated from their Communion, for Dr. Hammond in his Margin reads in Ver. 24. thus: But un­to [you, I say the rest] in Thyatira, &c. for the Kings, M. S. reads it so [...]. See also the Bibles Prin­ted by the Deputies of Chris. Bar­ker, 1599. and by Ro­bert Bar­ker, 1607. Ch. 2.2. , which im­ports another distinct Church or People in that City. And the Reason why Christ threatned those defiled Christians, which were the Church to whom the Epistle was primarily directed, was because they suf­fered those evils, when they should have purged out such Offenders, as the Church of Ephesus did, for what else can be meant by those Words: I know thy Works — how thou canst not bear them which are Evil: and thou hast tried them, which say they are Apo­stles, and are not; and hast found them liars, who were therefore doubtless rejected from their Communion. But if any say, that these Words, thou canst not bear them which are evil, have only respect to the following Words. And thou hast tryed them, which say they are Apostles, and are not; and hast found them lyars: I have this to Answer, 1. That if it were so, yet it shews that this Church did not bear with such Lyars in their Communion, otherwise they could not be properly commended for not bear­ing with them. 2. The Word [and] thou hast tryed them, &c. implieth a parti­cular different thing, or other Persons to those preceding Words in general: And [Page 24]how thou canst not bear them which are evil; like as we find in the same Verse, that the Word [and] thy Labour, [and] thy Pa­tience, denoteth different things to each o­ther, and particulars of the general Word (I know thy) [Works.] So that the Text does clearly demonstrate, that the Church of Ephesus did neither bear those that were Evil, nor those false Apostles in their Com­munion, which Exposition is confirmed by the Dutch Annotations on those Words, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil, that is, say they, such as are scandalous in Life and Doctrine. Thus their Zealis commen­ded here in the Evercise of Ecclesiastical Disci­pline. So that the aforesaid Objection, That none of the seven Churches of Asia, were commanded in their Epistles to sepa­rate themselves from any of those Persons, which the Holy Ghost charged with evil, is invalid. And considering also, that his si­lence may be improved (if we give ear to such a groundless Argument) for holding Communion with grosser as well as lesser Sins; we have Reason to believe, that some of those Churches and Christians, that were concerned in those Epistles (from the Authority of some other part of the Holy Scriptures) did separate themselves from those offenders, that by the Laws of Christ they were not to bear in their Communion. And that those Churches, who suffered themselves to be polluted, through the neglect of their Duty in bearing with those [Page 25]evils they should have purged out, did thereby bring themselves under the anger and displeasure of God for it, as appears in their Epistles.

II. Object. Is from Phil. 3.15, 16. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus mind­ed: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same Thing. That these Words give no allowance for a­ny to hold a corrupt Communion, is very plain, because the Apostle is not here argu­ing to prove the Resurrection of the Dead, or any fundamental Article of our Faith, or on any essential part of Divine Worship, or of such practical Obedience, as that the failure thereof is to be noted as disorderly walking: But he is Treating in the pre­ceding Verses, that he had not attained, but was following after the Resurrection-state of Perfection, and of his pressing to­wards the Mark, for the Prize of the high Calling of God in Christ Jesus; and then it follows, Let us therefore, as many as be per­fect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this un­to you. As if he should fay, Let us there­fore, as many as be [perfect] that is,1 Cor. 3.1. 1 Joh. 2.14. Heb. 5.12, 13, 14. 1 Cor. 2.6. as are not [babes] in Christ, that have need of [Milk] but are [strong Men] of [full Age] [skilful] in the Word of Righte­ousness, who by Reason of use have their Senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Per­fect, 2 Tim. 3.17. Col. 4.12. Jam. 3.2. Eph. 3.18, 19. [Page 26] throughly surnished unto all good Works. Perfect and compleat in all the Will of God. To be able to comprehend with all Saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and heighth; and to know the Love of Christ, which passeth Knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now consider, that as we cannot know that which passeth Knowledge, but as the Apostle saith, we know in part,1 Cor. 13.12. and as none but Christ was ever filled with all the fulness of the Perfe­ction of God; but of the Knowledge of his Will, and Love to us in all its parts ne­cessary to a Holy Life of Faith, the true Worship of God and Eternal Life: So if any came short of this kind of Perfection, the Apostle told them, God should reveal even this unto them. And therefore the Text does not any ways prohibit a Sepa­ration from such aforesaid Errours, that are noted in Holy Writ, as disorders in Manners, Doctrine or Worship. But it containeth a comfortable Promise to those that are rather free from them; that tho' they are weak in Faith, and Babes in the Knowledge of Christ, yet sincerely mind­ing the some things which according to Rule they have attained to, and labouring to grow in Grace,2 Pet. 3.18. and in the Knowledge of Christ, they shall have in due Season a more full discovery of that perfect Love,1 Joh. 4.12, 18. which casteth out fear, and of the Will of God in the Revelation of the Gospel, and shall be built up in their most Holy Faith [Page 27]from a babe-like-state to a perfect Man in Christ Jesus, in some Scripture Sense. So that there is nothing in the Text, that im­plieth a Prohibition of Separation in the aforesaid Cases of corrupt Manners, Erro­neous, Doctrine, false Worship, or irre­gular Administrations of Gospel Ordinan­ces.

III. Object. Is from, 1 Pet. 4.8. and Math. 18.21, 22. And above all things have fervent Charity among your selves: for Charity shall cover a Multitude of Sins. And Peter said, Lord, How oft shall my Brother Sin a­gainst me; and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus said unto him, I say not unto thee; until seven times: but, until seventy times seven; from which Scriptures, some may think that Christians should bear with Sins in Communion with one another, and cover them all in Love.

Answer, Our Lord himself shews plainly us, what is meant by those Scriptures, Luke 17.3. Take heed to your selves: If thy Bro­ther trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him. From whence it appears, 1. That we are to rebuke our Brother for his Trespass. 2. To forgive him, but mind it well, it must be if he re­turn and repenteth; he must turn again as well as say he repenteth; and so tho' Charity should cover a multitude of Sins, [Page 28]that are turned from and repented of, yet it should cover none from the Church which ought to come under her Cognizance, for our Charity should consist with our Obedi­ence to the Procepts of Christ.

IV. Object. It is said, Rebuke not an Elder, and therefore there should be a difference between dealing with an Elder of a Church and a private Member, for Sin.

Answer, 1 Tim. 4.12. The Apostle Paul in this Epistle to Timothy, saith, Let no Man despise thy Youth. And in Chap. 5.1, 2. he exhorteth him saying, Rebuke not an Elder, but intreat him as a Father, and the younger Men as Bre­thren; the Elder Women as Mothers, the younger as Sisters with all Purity. And Chap. 3.14, 15. These things write I unto thee, — that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to be­have thy self in the House of God. In these Scriptures the Apostle instructed Timothy, that young Servant of Christ, and in him others, how they should behave themselves, in reproving not only Elders, but younger Brethren and Sisters; that as an Elder Bi­shop or Pastour, which is the same in Of­fice,Tir. 1.7. should not be [soon angry] so Timothy, and others should not in an angry Spirit, rebuke either Elders or younger Brethren and Sisters, but rather reprove them by in­treaties. It's true, it's also said, Let the Elders that Rule well, be counted worthy of dou­ble Honour: But yet by Sin, they may lose and justly forfeit their double and single Honour too;Ver. 19.20, 21. for its said, Against an Elder [Page 29]receive not an. Accusation, but before (or as it is in our Margin under) two or three wit­nesses. Them that Sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear: I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Elect An­gels, that thou observe these things without pre­ferring one before another, doing nothing by par­tiality. So that it seems to be implyed, that the Christians in those Primitive times were so zealous to preserve the Reputation of the Gospel-Ministry, and the Purity of their Communion; as that they were ready to receive an Accusation against an Elder sooner, and on lesser evidence than against a private Member; insomuch as the Apo­stle thought it needful, to charge them not to receive an Accusation against an Elder, under the legal Evidence of two or three Witnesses. Moreover, we see how strictly the Apostle charged Timothy, that he should not use partiality in any Case of Sin, to pre­fer one before another, whether Elders (as there were sometimes several in one Church) or private Members;Tit. 1.5. Act. 20.17. Gal. 2.11, 14. but them that sinned should be rebuked before all, i. e. those whose Sins could not be privately covered for want of their Repentance, they who­ever they were should be rebuked before all, viz. so as the rebuke should reach as openly as the Sins were known, and that others might also fear. And therefore, there is not the least Reason from Scrip­ture, for any to imagine that an Elders Sin should be more favourably dealt with [Page 30]than a private Members, or that there is a different Rule for judging of them; but that the Precepts of Christ for purging out the Leaven of Unrighteousness, are to all a­like;Eph. 6.9. Col. 3.25. Lev. 10.1, 2. Deut. 1.17. for as the Lord respecteth no Mans Person, no not for Office-sake: So he hath commanded us, saying, Ye shall not respect Persons in Judgment.

V. Object. We ought not to leave a Church, till Christ be departed from it.

Answer 1. If this be true, then no Bapti­zed Congregation should receive a Member from our Brethrens Communion of the In­dependant Churches: For who can say that Christ hath left them, so as not to succeed their Ministry with true Conversion of Souls, and so as not to give something of his gracious presence to them and others, that are sound in the fundamental Princi­ples to Salvation; who truly fear the Lord and sincerely obey him according to their Light, tho' the Mist of Mens Traditions may not be clearly wiped from off their Eyes. I think none can be so uncharitable and censorious as to affirm it: But yet we may safely say, the more we come up in our Obedience to the perfect Rule of Christ, the greater our Peace and Comfort shall be, and the more or the presence of God, we shall enjoy in the gracious discoveries of his Eternal Love unto our Souls.

2. If Christ hath not left our aforesaid Brethren (and others that are not of our Communion) without some gracious Ma­nifestations [Page 31]of his Presence among them. And if therefore, according to the Obje­ction, their Members ought not to leave their Churches, do not then those Baptists which plead this Argument for a mixed Com­munion among themselves, and yet receive the Members of those Independant Church­es, condemn themselves thereby; as Coun­tenancers, Abetters and Receivers of disor­derly Persons, and as such, who according to this Objection, have little or nothing more to say for their Separation, and keep­ing up a distinct Church-state from them, then for a private and worldly Interest. And therefore away with such Pretensions for they are but a shame to us.

3. If we ought not to leave a Church, 'till Christ is departed from it, it must be meant, either of a partial or total depar­ture: If it be understood of Christ's Partial departing from a Church, we must either allow it lawful for a Member to leave his present Communion, when Christ hath in part forsaken that Church, so as for their Declension of Spirit they are suffered to fall into such corrupt Manners, erroneous Do­ctrine, false Worship, or irregular Practi­ces, which the Lord hath commanded to be purged out from among them; or else that the Church it self has Power to prescribe Limits of Communion, according as she shall judge, (without regard to the written Pre­cepts of Christ) that his presence doth bound it. But as I believe, no Baptized Churches will [Page 32]open their Mouths in favour of such an ab­solute Authority within themselves, for that we own the Scriptures to be our Rule; so it cannot be denied, but that it is lawful for Members to remove their Communion to a Church which is more Pure, for the same causes; as a Church should withdraw their Communion from a single Member, if for any cause at all. But if they mean, that we should not separate from a Church, till Christ is wholly departed from it; then it may be also argued, that a Church should not withdraw their Communion from a Member, till Christ be wholly departed from him. Besides, if a single Member should not depart from a Church, till Christ be wholly departed from it, then the Que­stion is, Whether Christ may be said total­ly to depart from a Church, till at least it is manifest, that she is absolutely apostati­zed in her Spirit from some one Article of our Christian Faith, which is essential to Salvation; and if till then it be unlawful for single Persons to separate their Com­munion from a Church of Christ, than if their Church worshippeth God in a false manner, so it be not in fundamentals of Salvation, and maketh void a Command­ment of God through Mens Traditions, and are corrupted in their Morals, they must still hold their Communion with such a People; and it's hard to tell how far a Church may be guilty of these Evils, and not loose the Essentials to Salvation. But [Page 33]if such a corrupt Communion ought to be held, rather than a Persons Separation from it should be allowed lawful, the conse­quents of it naturally tends to the over­throw and Extirpation of our Baptized Churches; for then what Obligation of Conscience is there for Baptized Believers to set up by themselves such a Church-state, which is despised and rendred obnoxious to many Christians, and which is accompanied with divers discouragements and outward disadvantages more than others. Besides, unless it be lawful for a Member, or the smaller number of a Church, to separate from their corrupt Communion, many Christians cannot reform nor worship God with the Church, or in the Administrati­on of all Gospel-Ordinances, according to their Consciences; for generally Reformers are the fewest number, and if these should continue in their irregular Communion, their Light will be hid and smoothered in the croud of corrupt Professors, and rather put under a Bushel than on a Gospel Can­dlestick,Mat. 5.14, 15, 16. to shine more clearly to those that are round about them.

VI. Object. We are (say some Persons) for Charity and Union, and therefore we are for Communion at the Lord's Table with Christians, as such: If we believe them to be but real Christians, we ought to hold our Communion with them.

Answer 1. To our Brethren of the Con­gregational or Independant Churches of [Page 34]whom some have argued with me after the Nature of this Objection, as if we were too strait in our Charity, for not holding Com­munion with them. To whom I have this to say: 1. That I think we may fairly ga­ther from what they have published (with their Confession of Faith) of the Instituti­on and Order of Churches, that they do not admit any unbaptized Christians to their Communion at the Lord's Table, for in Article the seventh, speaking of a particular Church gathered and compleated according to the Mind of Christ. In Article the eighth, they say, ‘The Members of those Church­es are Saints by Calling, visibly manifest­ing and evidencing — their Obedience unto that call of Christ, who being fur­ther known to each other by their Con­fession of the Faith, wrought in them by the Power of God — do willingly Con­sent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ, giving up them­selves to the Lord, and to one another, by the Will of God, in professed Subjecti­on to the Ordinances of the Gospel.’ So then, if the Members of a compleat Church do willingly consent to walk together in professed Subjection to the Ordinances of the Gospel, none that do not subject them­selves to the Ordinance of Baptism in their Sence can be orderly admitted by them, as compleatly quallified to their full Commu­nion; and so if they will not hold Commu­nion with such unbaptized Persons, they do [Page 35]not hold it, as some of them pretend, with Christians meerly as such; but only with such Christians, which are qualified with Water-Baptism to receive the Lords Sup­per.

But 2. If they own, that our baptizing Per­sons on Confession of Faith, by way of dip­ping, is also right Baptism according to Go­spel-Rule: and so for this Reason, they can freely hold their Communion with us. Yet this is no Corrector, that their Charity is more universal then ours, because then they receive us not meerly on the account of their Charity, but as Christians sitly qualified with Water-Baptism. But the Case is dif­ferent, respecting us, for seeing we deny their Infant-sprinkling to be true Baptism, or to be of God; and so they being to us as unbaptized Persons; our having sull Com­munion with them, would be not only con­trary to the Light of our own Consciences, but witnessed against by their practice of sprinkling for Baptism, as a qualification to full Communion. And therefore, we have equal Reason to say, that our refu­sing Church-Communion with them, is not for want of Charity towards them as Chri­stians, any more then it is for want of it in themselves to other Christians, that are not sprinkled or any ways baptized; if they refuse Communion with them, as some have done in their private Conference, ac­cording to what is gathered as their Mind in Print before. So that I see no Reason, [Page 36]why our Brethren should in the least be of­fended at us, for keeping our selves from their Communion, when otherwise, so far as I can perceive, their Practice, as well as our own Consciences would condemn us for so doing.

3. Our aforesaid Brethren of the Inde­pendant Churches (however some of their Members have in their private Con­verse reflected on us) have fairly granted,See their 28 Article of the Insti­tution of Churches at the end of the Congre­gational Confession of Faith. that a Person where he cannot continue in any Church without his Sin, may depart from the Communion of one Church to another. For they say, ‘Persons that are joined in Church-fellowship, ought not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church whereunto they are so joined: Nevertheless, where any Person cannot continue in any Church without his Sin, either for want of the Administration of any Ordinances instituted by Christ, or by his being deprived of his due Privi­ledges, or compelled to any thing in Pra­ctice not warranted by the Word, or in case of Persecution, or upon the account of Conveniency of Habitation, he con­sulting with the Church, or the Officer, or Officers thereof, may peaceably de­part from the Communion of the Church wherewith he hath so walked, to join himself with some other Church, where he may enjoy the Ordinances in the Pu­rity of the same, for his Edification and Consolation.’

Now seeing they grant, that we may leave our Communion with a Church, to join our selves with some other Church, where we may enjoy the Ordinances in the Purity of the same; then none of them ought to blame us, for not holding our full Communion with them; as if they were the standard of Truth, who we believe are not in the compleat Order and true Admi­nistration of all Gospel Ordinances. See­ing we walk by their Rule of Communion according to our Consciences, tho' we have not the same Light to walk with them.

2. For any of our Baptized Brethren to plead for mixed Communion, from the Obligation of universal Charity, for Chri­stians as they are such, does rather betray their want of real Love;Gal. 5.22. 1 Joh. 4.19. for that is a Fruit of the Holy Spirit, flowing first from the Faith we have in the Love of God to us; which is the cause of Love in us to him,1 Joh. 5.1. and so to our Brethren which are begotten of him; and then our universal Love to Chri­stians depending on our Love to God, it must consist with sincere Obedience to his Will, so far as we are inlightned. For this is the Love of God, Joh. 14.21, 23. 1 Joh. 5.2, 3. that we keep his Command­ments; and his Commandments are not grievous. And by this we know that we Love the Children of God, when we Love God and keep his Com­mandments. And therefore, whatsoever Love is pretended, which is inconsistent with sin­cere Obedience to Christ, 'tis rather to be suspected than counted real. But in Charity I [Page 38]must conclude, it is not for want of Love to the Institutions of Christ, but for want of Light that you plead for Communion at the Lords Table with unbaptized Christi­ans. However you do thereby virtually de­ny your own Baptism to be essentially ne­cessary to a regular Gospel-Church, and make void that Holy Ordinance of Christ, which in Obedience to him you have subje­cted to. Besides, why may you not then al­so say, that you ought in Charity to Chri­stians, meerly as such, (altho' they be not yet baptized,) to call any gifted Christian to administer the Ordinances of Preaching, Prayer, and breaking Bread in the Church; and in Charity to those Members that walk disorderly, and break the Commandments of Christ, forbear the Execution of his Or­dinance of withdrawing your Church-Com­munion from them, because you believe them still to be real Christians; as if we could not Love Mens Persons, unless we fa­vour their Sins, and thereby perhaps through the neglect of our Duty to them, harden their Hearts therein: And so under the Notion of Christian Charity, the true Order of a Gospel-Church may be quite destroyed.

VII. Object. But some may think, I open the door of the Church too wide, and give too great incouragement for Persons to wan­der from Church to Church, or to leave their present Communion to imbody them­selves into a distinct Church-state.

Answer 1. The same causes as will justi­fie [Page 39]a single Persons removing his Commu­nion to another Church, will also justisie a Parties Separation to sit down by them­selves in a Church-state; otherwise there is no erecting of Reformed Churches to be allowed, where there was none before: Which if it be there lawful to reform, as surely it cannot be denied, there is nei­ther Scripture nor Reason, as I can find, to debar a reforming party from settling them­selves in the Order of a Regular Gospel-Church, where there is one already, if they find it expedient for them.

But 2. To prevent such misapprehensi­ons of giving Church-members too great a Liberty. I shall here remind the Reader, that if he duely considers, what I have said in this small Discourse, he will not find the least al­lowance for Persons to remove their Com­munion out of Novelty, or meerly for their Pleasures-sake, or for Trivial Matters and Pretences; for herein the Church is bound (in faithfulness to Christ, and the Souls that are under her special care) to use the means directed to in the Scripture, for pre­serving her mutual Peace and Welfare. But for real Conscience-sake, Separation should be allowed to keep themselves pure from corrupt and sinful Manners, Erroneous Do­ctrines in essentials to Salvation, and from false Worship and irregular Ordinances; and unless there be a Moral Necessity, or a real Expediency for it, no Separation else is lawful; for every Member is (or should [Page 40]be) in Covenant with the Church, to walk in the ways of the Lord together with them. But yet when a Church of Christ shall alter in any part of their Faith or Practice essential to a regular Church, the Members thereof are free from their former Cove­nant: Not simply, because the Church has broken the Conditions of it; (for that were to acknowledge her Members to be under an absolute tye, while she makes no Alteration of her Faith and Practice.) For as none of our Churches in Covenanting with their Members, by giving them the right hand of fellowship, does intend thereby ab­solutely to bind themselves from any future Alteration of their Faith or Practice, if in Conscience they should be otherwise inform­ed; so the like Liberty is but equitable for the Members to have, and therefore, as there is the same Reason for it, so it ought to be equally taken for granted in their Co­venanting with the Church, that each Member in Covenant hath an equal Reser­vation of Liberty of Conscience to the Church, and neither side ought to impose on each other, for that is a making them­selves the perfect standard of Religion, like the Church of Rome.

3.2 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. The Apostle Peter exhorteth the El­ders to take the oversight of the Flock, Not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy Lu­cre, but of a ready Mind. [Neither as be­ing Lords over Gods Heritage, but being en­samples to the Flock.] And Paul saith, That [Page 41]to spare you, I came not as yet unto Corinth. 2 Cor. 1.23, 24. 1 Tim. 6.2, 5. 2 Tim. 2.22. Chap. 3.5. Not for that we have Dominion over your Faith, but are helpers of your Joy. And Timothy was commanded as a single Person, to with­draw himself from those Professors of Re­ligion, that were corrupt in Doctrine.

Now if the Apostles, who were the in­fallible Pen-men of sacred Scripture, dis­claimed Lordship over the Saints, and Do­minion over their Faith, Why should any hold such Principles, as will naturally as­sume such a regal Power over the Consci­ences of their Brethren, as tendeth to en­thral them in divers troubles; when they go about to remove their Communion from them for Conscience-sake, considering al­so they themselves are but lately delivered from the Yoak of Persecution? And for such who make it their frequent Practice to receive Members, that remove for Consci­ence-sake from other Congregations (that are true Churches of Christ, as to their vi­sible Matter, and part of their Form,) to hold such Principles as will deny their own Members Liberty of Conscience, without their Censures, Snares or Inthralments to frighten their weak Brethren to continue in their Communion against the Light which they have received, is consequently assu­ming such an Arbitrary Dominion over their Faith and Consciences which neither God nor Nature hath given to them, and is not Consonant to the Law, for doing to others as they would have others do to them in the [Page 42]like Case. And to speak the plain Truth of such a Principle and Practice, it is no better then claiming a right of Impositi­on on the Consciences of their Brethren, and a holding fast all they have, and all they can so get right or wrong.

And therefore seeing, the Light of Scrip­ture and Reason with common Equity, is repugnant to such an Arbitrary Dominion over the Faith and Consciences of the Saints, and that this Principle of denying a single Member his Liberty of Communion accord­ing to his Light, is also a bar to Religious Reformation: I conceive none should go about to hinder a single Persons removing from them for Conscience-sake any other ways, than by Arguments from the Scrip­tures for the Regularity of their Commu­nion; and if herein they cannot satisfie his Mind, I believe the Church should do no more, then (if they please) to enter him in their Book departed from them, for the cause for which he leaveth them, for as much as his Principles are not opposite to any of their Essentials of Communion. And in Case they were, yet if he holdeth no Error in fundamentals to Salvation, it better suits with the Grace of Love and universal Cha­rity to one another, to let him peaceably remove his Communion, than by a harsh and sower Spirit, to widen the Differences that are between Saints and Saints, and to fright a weak and tender Conscience with the Censure of a Church; which if it be not [Page 43]according to Christs Institutions, it is nei­ther bound in Heaven, nor should it be binding on our Consciences. But if a single Member should alter in his Faith or Pra­ctice, from any of his Church Essentials of Communion, and yet seek to continue in the same Church, then to prevent the spreading of his Leaven to the Pollution of the Body, or their being defiled with his Errour by Participation in full Communion with him, they have ground on Non-repen­tance to withdraw from him; and if he persisteth in such an Errour, to purge him out from their Communion. But to con­clude the aforesaid Objection: What spiritual Comfort can any have in Church-Communion, where there is not an agree­ment in the Essentials thereof? doth not the sweetest Communion depend on the great­est Union in Faith and Practice? why then should any Christians be kept in Bondage, and be deprived of the chiefest ends of Church-Communion, which are to glorifie God in the purest worship they can attain to the Knowledge and Practice of, and to enjoy the comfortable Communion of Saints in the Unity of Faith and of the Spirit, which is the bond of Peace?

Secondly, I shall present you with a parti­cular instance of the confused Matter which is already Printed among us, in Mr. Keaches Book, intitled the Breach Repaired, and of several Queries made upon it in my Reply to him, with some Additions to them. To [Page 44]proceed therefore, I shall premise some par­ticular things in Mr. Keaches Gold Refined, or Treatise of Baptism, Page 181, 182. where he saith thus, ‘Let me conclude all with one Use of Caution to my Brethren, that are Baptized as Believers, and yet take Liberty to walk in Communion with such Churches as dissent from them, in respect of this Ordinance, and sprinkle Babes. I am more concerned about you than any other People, because you seem to pull down with one Hand that which you build with the other — ought you not to follow the best and highest Reforma­tion, and clearest discovery of God, and to be in the most perfect and compleat Order of the Gospel, you are able to arrive to the Knowledge of — is not Truth and Righteousness to be joined with Peace and Love? Nay, and doth not my Love run out to our Brethren, in a cleaner Chan­nel than yours.’ And in his Treatise of Laying on of Hands, Page 99. he hath these Words. ‘Can we comfortably have Com­munion with such that oppose a Holy O­racle, or Command of God? — Ought not Communion to flow from Christian Union, especially in all fundamental Prin­ciples of Church-Constitution? Ought we not in these things to be agreed, be­fore we can in an orderly way sit down together?’

But notwithstanding Mr. Benjamin Keach thus refuseth Communion with those that [Page 45]are not under Believers-Baptism,See my Ep. to my Reply to Mr. Keach's Breach Re­paired, p. 10, &c. and lay­ing on of Hands, yet in his general Epistle to his (pretended) Answer to my Appen­dix, Page 9. he saith; ‘We do not say our dissatisfied Brethren shall sing with us, or we will have no fellowship with them: No, God forbid we should impose on their Consciences: We do not look up­on Singing, &c. an Essential of Commu­nion; it is not for the being, but for the Comfort and well being of the Church.’ To which I there Reply to Mr. Keach, Let me ask you in your own Words, See his darkness, &c. Van­quished or Truth in its Primitive Purity, p. 96. Why should you have a greater esteem for one than for ano­ther Institution? If it be as you say, that your way of Singing is a Gospel-Ordinance, for the Practice of the Church: Is there any Church Ordinance of Divine Worship, that is not essential to her orderly being, as well as for her Comfort and well Being? Who gave you Power to dispence with any one Ordinance more than others? And in Page 13. of my Epistle, I farther tell Mr. Keach, that there are divers things that I and others cannot reconcile to the Word of God, and his confused Principles of Com­munion, some of which I offer to his Con­sideration by way of Query.

1. Whether it be lawful for a Christian to withdraw (or remove) his Communi­on at the Lords Table, from a Church that practiseth any one Ordinance of Divine Worship, or of Church-Constitution, in a false Manner, to join with a Church that [Page 46]is more pure? And whether it is his Duty, if enlightned therein, so to do?

2. Whether there is any Liberty given in the Word of God, for a Christian to have Communion with a Church that pra­ctiseth any one Ordinance of Gospel-Wor­ship, or of Church-Constitution, in a false Manner, more than of any other such Or­dinances so performed? and if there be, which it is, or which they are, and where the allowance is given?

3. Whether thanking and praising of God, be as much an Ordinance, and of as high a Nature, as Prayer to him?

4. Whether [the Mode of Singing] the Praises of God, be also as much an Ordi­nance, and of as high a Nature, as Prayer?

5. Why it is not as unlawful to have Communion with a Church that practiseth Singing the Praises of God in a false Man­ner, as with a Church that performeth Prayer in a false Manner?

6. Seeing you have made a Common Praise-Book (so I call it) wherein you say is con­tained some hundred of Sacred Hymns, out of which as I hear, is sometimes read and sang an Hymn in your Congregation for publick Worship: So if another Ministring Brother of your own or of another Congregation, in full Communion with you at the Lords Table, should also make prestinted set Forms of Prayer, and read them, or say them in the Church for publick Worship; I Query, Whether you would nevertheless hold and [Page 47]continue your full Communion with such a Person or Church as so useth such humane prestinted Forms of Prayer?

7. Whether it be not a worshipping of God in a false Manner, and so unlawful, and a Sin for any of our Brethren alone by them­selves, to pray in their own or anothers set humane prestinted form of Words, and if it can be proved against him, that he u­seth such private Prayers; Whether the Church should still hold their full Communi­on with him, without Repentance for it?

8. Whether it be not unlawful for any of our Churches to hold full Communion with a Brother at the Lords Table, who some­times useth to pray with another different People, in a false Manner, in a set humane prestinted form of Words; and if this be unlawful, whether it is not equally un­lawful for a Church to hold such Communion with a Brother, who tho' he cannot practice Singing the Praises of God in as false a Manner in his own Church, yet he sometimes as false­ly singeth in other Congregations?

9. Whether [the Mode of Singing] an Hymn is a piece of Worship, Essential to the Regular and Compleat Administration of the Lords Supper? If our Singers deny this, why do so many of them make such a stir about it, and commend that practice of Singing,See the Re­ply to Mr. Steed's E­pist. pag. 8.40, 41, 45, 47, 49. as they boldly say, from the Example of Christ and his Disciples, as a perfect Pattern and Rule for us to follow? And if they be­lieve in their Consciences, that [the Mode [Page 48]of Singing] an Hymn is so Essential to that Ordinance; How can any of those Gospel-Ministers, as I have heard say, administer the Lords Supper without it, and contrary to the Light of their own Consciences di­spense with that which belongs, as they be­lieve, to Christs Ordinance, as if they choose to please Men rather than God in his Wor­ship?

I have added the more Queries, because such stating of the matter divers ways, will lay a greater Necessity on any who may pre­tend to answer them, either to discover the Discord and Confusion of their Principles of Communion, and the natural tendency of them, or to unmasque the farther designs of those that are apostatizing from the true Worship of God.

Thirdly, I shall here humbly present my Ad­vice to some of our Baptized Churches. And

1. To those whose sixed Pastours and Mi­nisters differ from their Churches in some Principles, Essential either to the true Man­ner of praising God in publick Worship, or to the Regular Constitution of a Gospel-Church, my humble Advice to you, is. That notwithstanding, if they rightly administer all Gospel-Ordinances, according to the Prin­ciples of their Churches, for the present ne­cessity, you continue as you are: And as their Office is to watch over you in the Lord,Heb. 13.17. 1 Thes. 5.12. so your Duty is to obey them so far as they rule by the Laws of Christ; and to continue your Affections, and abound in [Page 49]Love to them and all the Saints. But yet if they put such different and erroneous Principles in practice, and thereby inter­rupt the pure Communion of their Churches, contrary to their Faith and settled Order, or go about to disturb your Peace with any of them; then as ye are bound to follow your Pastours and Ministers, only so far as they are followers of Christ and his Apo­stles,1 Cor. 11.1. Phil. 3.17. so it is your Duty to use all Diligence to preserve the Peace and right Constituti­on of your Churches against their Innovati­ons; and rather than to have your Commu­nion corrupted by them, you are to part with them and all things else, tho' never so near and dear to you.

2. To those Churches which are destitute of a settled Pastour: I shall offer this to your serious Consideration, That it is a weak Ima­gination to think that honest and sincere hearted Ministers, tho' naturally of a mild and peaceable Temper, will not labour to promote the practice of those things in their Churches, which they believe to be the Will of God, for if they are faithful Men they will do it in Obedience to Christs Com­mission; wherein they are required to teach all Nations whatsoever he hath commanded them.Math. 28.20. And therefore if you expect that such a Minister as you design to call to set­tle with you, will not for the sake of some in the Church who differ from him, declare and promote according to his Conscience, the practice of all things which God re­quires, [Page 50]you have equal Reason to ex­pect that for the sake of those Persons, he will not be faithful to his Principles; and then how can any think he will be faithful to his Church, or any thing else he takes in hand, any farther than it suits with his pri­vate interest; so that whatever Love, Peace and Union, a Church may propose to them­selves, under the care of such a fixed Pa­stour as differs in his Principles from it, in any Essentials of a Regular Church. viz. Ei­ther in Doctrinals to Salvation, Practicals in Divine Worship, or in Administrations of Gospel-Ordinances, such a Church does on­ly delude themselves with an Expectation of that which they lay a Foundation to de­stroy; for if such a Pastour be faithful to his Principles (it being irrational to con­ceive that a whole Church will be for alter­ing their former Settlement of Communion) they will then find that his differing Princi­ples will breed Division among them, and so destroy the bond of Peace and Love, which they promised to themselves from the peaceable Temper of such a Pastour: And instead thereof, those faithful Members that are still for their former Settlement, may fall into a Labyrinth of Troubles; and if they are the smaller part of the Church, the others will be apt to count them the disturbers of its Peace; and perhaps when it is too late to recover the Truth and Purity of Gospel-Worship and Communion that was once among them, they will mourn un­der [Page 51]their Troubles and Temptations, and for their weakness in choosing or accepting of such a Pastour, as thereby to betray the Trust committed to them by Jesus Christ, so far as to loose of those things he hath wrought among them, insomuch as respect­ing their publick Trust of the Gospel,2 John 8. as Members of a visible Church of Christ, they will come so short of holding fast that which they have received,Rev. 3.11. that no Man take their Crown, as that they cannot give so good an account of their Stewardship, as that evil Servant did,Math. 25, 25, 26. who rendred again what he had received of his Lord.

Therefore knowing the aptness of many People to follow others Examples, from their Affections to them, more than from the real Judgment and Understanding they have of their Principles; and considering the ex­perience some have had of the restless en­deavours of their Ministers, to leaven their Churches with those Principles wherein they differ from them; and the Obligation of Conscience they are under, according to their Light, to declare the whole Counsel of God to the People under their care;Acts 20.26, 27. I conclude it highly concerns those Churches that have yet their choice to make for the Ministration of Gospel-Ordinances, to seek for such Persons as are one with them in the Unity of the Faith, and of the Know­ledge of Gospel-Institutions. For whatso­ever Affections you may have to any Person, yet above all things you ought to be faith­ful [Page 52]to the Truth, as ye have received it in your Consciences, and not by any means to be led aside to betray the Purity of the Gospel committed to your Trust, so far as to put­it into the Power of any Person to be conti­nually working (perhaps while you and o­thers are lull'd asleep in the pretended Bed of Charity) the overthrow and confusion of any essential part of the Religion you profess. Besides, a Pastour should be qua­lified, according to the Word of God, which saith, A Bishop must be blameless, as the Steward of God — holding fast the faith­ful Word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound Doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gain-sayers. Tit. 1.7, 9, &c. For there are many unruly, and vain-talkers, and Deceivers, espe­cially they of the Circumcision: Whose Mouths must be stopped. Now consider, that one great qualification of an Elder, is to be able to stop the Mouths of Gain-sayers. And therefore none who differ from their Church in any essential Principles of her Communi­on, are fit for the Office of an Elder in it, for such a one in the Matters of difference, is principled rather to gain-say the Church, than other Persons that oppose the Faith or Practice of it.

Moreover the Zeal of others, which are for the common way of Singing, should pro­voke us to promote the pure Interest of Christ among our Churches, for they have used di­ligence to improve the Benesit of the pub­lick Fund, for Learning of such young Bre­thren [Page 53]the Knowledge of the Tongues, the better to sit them for the Gospel Ministry; who have sucked in that apostatizing Prin­ciple of Singing, and I have been told that some of them have gone to School to learn it by Art in and about Bristol, or the We­stern parts of this Land, and if I am not misinformed, there were eight in number for common set form singing, two of which were advanced by more private means, then the publick Fund; and Mr. Keach has pleaded so much for Art in Divine Worship,See his Book inti­tled, the Breach Re­paired in Gods Wor­ship, Page 183, 184. that if the Spirit of the Lord does not lift up a spiritual standard against it, we may fear the increase of Artificial Worship in our Churches; for he saith, ‘There is I must 'tell you, an Art in speaking; and no Man but has need to learn, and be instru­cted to speak as he ought — especially when he speaks about Divine Things. — Also there is an Art in preaching; and all young Men when they begin to take upon them that work, need Instruction how to handle a Doctrine. And (saith he) so I may say in Praying too.’ So that we see, how naturally the Art of singing, which he is there pleading for, does draw Men in to plead for an Art in Praying too. And as I have said in my Reply to him,See my Book, Page 18. is not this a forward step (for him or others that may (if the Lord of his Mercy does not pre­vent) hereafter build upon this Foundati­on,) to bring into use a prestinted Form of Prayer for Gospel-Worship; for if Nature [Page 54]and Grace may and ought to be improved by Art, to express the Matter of our Pray­ers to God; what Art can he mean, or can any others think is best for Prayer, than to use an Artificial Form of Words? I menti­on these things to shew the danger that we are in of loosing the true spiritual Worship of God, by the apostatizing of some in our Profession to the Errour of prestinted Forms of Singing. And if we do not incourage such gracious Brethren, as may be found among us better principled (whether with or without the Knowldge of other Tongues) to improve their Gifts, which through the Blessing of God may be fit for the pub­lick Service of our Churches, many of them are like to crumble away for want of Mini­sters suitable to their Principles; and those others, which have been advanced to the Ministry by the publick Fund, will have the greater opportunity through the necessities of our Churches to infect our Profession with their Error of common set form Sing­ing (and I fear with mixed Communion too, which seem like twins to go hand in hand together.) As for their [Mode] of of Singing, I have largely shewed, that which was never answered by any of them, and plainly proved in my Reply to Mr. Benjamin Keaches Book of Singing, Intitled the Breach Repaired, &c. That we have no Command nor Example, neither under the Law, nor under the Gospel for the Mi­nisters, and all the People to sing with u­nited [Page 55]Voices together in the settled worship of God in his Church. And that his com­mon way of Singing, is not that Mode of spiritual singing which was used in the A­postles time, nor is it the natural, but an Artificial Mode of Worship: And also that we have not the least ground to conclude, that Christ and his Disciples at or after the Lords Supper did sing the Hymn or Praise, which they gave to God, for those Texts, Math. 26.30. Mark 14.26. and Acts 16.25. are not rightly translated in our last Bibles, which are witnessed against by many of our old English Bibles, and many learned Au­thours, as I have abundantly shewed in my a­foresaid Reply to Mr. Keach. But to re­turn. It is therefore high time for all that have any Love for the Truth and Purity of Gospel-worship, to awake out of sleep; for the necessities of many Churches call upon us earnestly to seek the Lord by Humilia­tions, Fastings and Prayers; that he would graciously raise up Ministers, not only sound in the Faith, but in all their Principles of Divine Worship, in the Spirit of Love and Meekness. And tho' we may find some of our Ministers, and other Brethren, that are for the new Modelling of our Churches with their formal Worship, and mixed Commu­nion to decline this Work with us, by Rea­son their different Principles cannot join with our particular Requests relating there­unto; yet this should in no wise hinder our People from flocking together, and crying [Page 56]fervently to the Lord for the pourings forth of the Holy Spirit (according to his promise) to bear a lively Testimony against all un­righteousness and false worship,Isa. 44.3, to 6. Ch. 59.21. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. Isa. 59.19, 20, 21. Jer. 3.15. and to give us Pastours according to his heart, which shall feed his People with Knowledg and Understanding, even such as shall worship him in Spirit and Truth, without any mixture of humane Forms and meer Inventions of men. For if instead of sound Elders we should have only those for the publick ser­vice of God that are for a piece of false wor­ship and mixed communion, what else can be expected from new Converts and those who joyn themselves to our Churches, but that through Love and Affections to their Ministers they will suck in their Erroneous Principles, as sad Experience hath shewed, and so in time will overturn the former or­der and settlement of our Churches, and put back that blessed Reformation which God has wrought among us, and which many pre­cious Saints have suffered for, that the Puri­ty of the Gospel (which some are now betray­ing) might be handed down to future ages.

Fourthly, I shall leave a few things to the serious consideration of those who have re­ceived the manifestation of the special Grace of God in Christ to their souls, through faith which worketh by love, and yet are walk­ing at large in neglect of his holy Ordinan­ces, as if they were left to Christians liber­ty to obey or reject them at their pleasures. Let me ask a few Questions for thee to an­swer [Page 57]in thine own Conscience,Rom. 2.15, 16. which shall either accuse or else excuse thee in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel. Why art thou partial in Gods laws or in Christs institutions,Mal. 2.9. so as to pick and choose which of them thou wilt obey? Remember,Psal. 119.6. David saith, Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy Commandments. Wilt thou partake of the Benefit of the publick Prayers of the Saints, and of the Ministration of the Gospel of Christ in his Church, and not put to thy helping hand to support it in the World, and to convey it down to future ages? what had become of thy precious soul, and many thousands more, if our late Re­formers had bin of thy Mind? how should the true worship of God have bin maintain­ed, and how little preaching should we have in our present day, if Christians did not im­body themselves into Societies to encourage the Gospel Ministers? for where can their light best appear if not on a Gospel Candle­stick? No marvel, Soul, if thou hast not peace of Conscience and strength of Grace against the power of Sins and Temptations, if thy feet are not found in the ways of Christ, whose ways are ways of pleasantness,Prov. 3.17. Ch. 10.29. Isa. 64.5. and all his paths are peace and strength to the up­right. There God has said he meets his people that remember him in his ways, and Christ has much intailed his gracious pre­sence on the faithful obedience of his Saints. He that hath my Commandments, Joh. 14.21. and keepeth [Page 58]them, he it is that loveth we: And he that lo­veth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest my self to him. — If a man love me, he will keep my words: And my Father will love him; and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. And therefore the more obedient a Soul is, the more of Christs fulness he shall receive,John 1.16. and Grace for Grace.

But 2. If thou standest off from Church-Communion, because thou thinkest thy self unworthy of it, or unmeet for it, or till thou hast a special inspiration to thrust thee forth in thy duty; my Answer is, that in this snare I was intangled my self for di­vers years, but at last I was satisfied in my Conscience; that seeing I had true sa­ving Faith and Light in Gospel Ordinances, my personal unworthiness through the in­firmity of Nature was no sufficient Ground for me to neglect the Institutions of Christ, and that I could not rationally expect any extraordinary motions to do that which the Word of God did plainly express to be my Duty. Besides, for Christians to wait for a more than ordinary impulse of Spirit, to thrust them forth in their Duty, when clearly exprest in the Holy Scriptures, is thro' weak­ness of Faith, a Tempting God to confirm his written Will by extraordinary Inspira­tion, which is a Sin, Math. 4.7.

Moreover, I shall farther remove this ob­jection from 1 Cor. 11.27. Whosoever shall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord un­worthily, [Page 59]shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. This unworthiness cannot re­spect our natural infirmities, for then the best of men would be excluded from that Ordi­nance; but the unworthiness there mentio­ned is described to us in the same Chapter to be, Divisions and Drunkeness,See ver. 18.20, 21, 22, 33. and such like Disorders as should not be suffered in a Gospel-Church, or that shew they de­spise the Church of God. And therefore Christians having light in Gospel Ordinan­ces, tho' they are but weak in Faith and Babes in Christ, and have not yet attained to the Faith of Assurance of their Election,2 Pet. 1.10. or to the clear witnessings of the Spirit of God with their Spirits,Rom. 8.16. that they are the Children of God, yet having the true Faith of cleaving to Christ with full purpose of heart, and of reliance on his death and me­rits for Salvation and eternal life, those have a right to full Communion with the Church, at the Lords Table and we are bound to re­ceive them,Rom. 14.1. but not to doubtful Disputati­ons: But.

If thou art one within the visible pale of the Church, and such a wonderful and hor­rible thing is therein, or shall happen, as was in Israel, tho' in a different manner, the Prophets prophesied falsly,Jere. 5.31. and the Priests bear Rule by their means, and the people loved to have it so. As the Lord said to them, so will I say to thee, if then thou art of their Spirit, what wilt thou do in the end thereof, when the Lord shall visit for [Page 60]these things? canst thou bear, yea like and plead for an Alteration in thy Church-Constitution, or in Gods worship, because thy Pastour will have it so. Take heed lest thou givest ground to say of thee as it was said to Israel: Isa. 3.12. Ch. 9.16. O my People, they which lead thee, cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. — and they that are led of them are destroyed. 1 Cor. 10.22. Brethren, beware lest ye provoke, the Lord to Jealousy! are ye stronger than he?Deut. 12.32. hath he not said, what things soever I command you, observe to do it? Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. And have we not divers instances of his sore Displeasure for breaking his Rule of Wor­ship, as in Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 7.11, to 19. who for offe­ring of strange fire, died before the Lord? And might not some have thought it a small matter to have eaten of the Peace or Thank-offering after the first day, or of the Vow-offering, if any of it had been left on the third day, but we see how great an offence it was to make so small an Addition to Gods Ordinance, as that it should not be accept­ed, neither should it be imputed to him that offered it: It should be an Abomination, and that soul should bear his iniquity. Moreover, we read how the Lord smote above fifty thousand of the men of Beth-she-mesh for but looking into his Ark, and how Ʋzzah lost his life for touching the Ark of God,2 Sam. 6.6. 1 Sam. 6.19. 2 Chr. 26.16. because they sought him not after the due manner: And how Ʋzziah the King for medling with Gods Ordinance, and burning [Page 61]incense before the Lord,1 Chr. 15.13. contrary to his re­vealed Will, was smote with leprosy unto his dying Day. And Christ tells us,Mat. 159. that in vain they do worship him teaching for Do­ctrines the Commandments of Men. There­fore to the Law and to the Testimony: Isa. 8.20. If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them, Joh. 4.24. and let us keep the Commandments of God and worship him in Spirit and in Truth,1 Tim. 4 8. for Godliness is profita­ble unto all things, having promise of the Life that now is, and of that which is to come.