SECT. I. Animadversions, upon some Passages in the Epistle, Concerning the Magistrates Power, in matters of RELIGION.

‘CAn God indure to bee prescribed by Crea­tures? shall man coine Laws, for Rules of acceptable walking with God, in spirituall, Civil, or Ecclesiastical things?’ &c.

You are not ignorant, that in Ecclesi­astical things, both for Doctrine, and Discipline, wee own no other Rule but the written Word of God, by which both Magistrates and Subjects must be guided. And therefore your flourishing insinuations of the contrary, are very uncharitable and vain. Wee wish that those golden verses, Deut. 17.18, 19, 20. were written in the hearts, and transcribed in the lives of all Christian Princes. Wee ac­knowledge, that Magistrates have no power to create new Laws, for the Government of the Church, contrary to the Divine pattern laid down in the Word. But, have not Ma­gistrates power to make Penal Laws, to inforce obedience to the Law of God, in matters of Ecclesiastical concernment? Your book doth in effect deny them all power.

For the Magistrates Power in matters of Religion, Consider,

1. The light of Nature pleads for it; It hath taught Hea­then Princes to interpose their Power in matters of Religion, and their people to acknowledge it. Scripture examples clear­ly evince this, which God seals with his approbation, Ezra 7. [Page 2] 25, 26, 27. Dan. 3.29. Jonah 3.6. &c. And Heathens gene­rally, have looked upon the blessing of God upon States and people, as a consequent of their care and zeal for Reli­gion.

2 The Magistrates and Kings of Israel had and exercised power in matters of Religion. Moses and Joshuah had so, Exod. 32.27, 28. Josh. 5.2, &c. Josh. 24.14. to 29. So it was with the Judges, 1 Sam. 7.3, 4. And the Kings succeeded the Judges herein, as that which God called them to, Psa. 78.70, 71, 72.Pascant reges & principes suos subditor, primum coele­sti doctrina, hoc est curent recte doceri ecclesiam, pro­hibeant idolo­lattiam, super­stitiosos cultus, extirpent erro­res in ecclesia, & compescant blasphemos; conferant opes ad conser­vationem mini­sterii, & stu­diorum neces­sariorum; Dein­de current eti­am corpora subditorum. Moller. in locum. He took him from the sheepfold to feed Jacob his people, and Is­rael his inheritance. Not only to protect them in their Civil im­munities and priviledges, But to feed, or see them fed with heavenly Doctrine, pure Ordinances and Worship, to countenance true Religion, and extirpate Idolatry. This is the principal part of a Kings Office in reference to Gods inheritance. So did Da­vid, So did all other good Kings and Rulers feed Israel, 2 Chro. 14.17, 29, 30, 31. Chapters, and Nehem. 13. And Gods fre­quent complaints against the Kings of Israel, for not so do­ing, are pregnant proofs of their power in matters of Religion.

3 Under the Gospel, the Christian Magistrate, as such, hath answerably power in matters of Religion.

For, 1. All those Texts wherein this power of the Magi­strate under the Law is made out, whether by way of Pre­cept, approved example, or blame for not exercising it; shew the duty and Power of Magistrates under the Gospel: Since we no where find the charge that God then laid upon those, re­pealed, or taken off in relation to these.

2. The Commission of the Christian Magistrate, as such, is not onely as authentique, but every whit as large, as that of the Jewish Magistrate, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3, 4. 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. Titus 3.1. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Here Magistrates, are said to be sent and ordai­ned of God.Mali nomen comprehendit, etiam omne quod circa sa­cra committi [...] tu [...]; [...], bonum qualecunque. Grot. de imper. Sum potest. The end for, and work about which they are sent and ordained, is to punish evil, and encourage good works: The comprehensivenesse of those expressions, shews plainly, that the Magistrates power refers even to Religious concern­ments. Wee must not distinguish where the Law doth not. If therefore to blaspheme the name of God, break the Sabbath, &c. bee evil works, they fall under the Sword of the Civill Magistrate no lesse than Murder or Adultery: and so the Ma­gistrate is custos utriusque Tabulae, the keeper of both the Ta­bles [Page 3] of the Law. Therefore wee are commanded to obey them, as Ministers of God for good; resisting their lawful commands, is called a resisting of God, and wee must pray for them, that under them as Rulers wee may live in all Piety towards God, as well as in all Righteousnesse towards men.

3 The same reasons from the object, which required the in­terposition of the Magistrates power in matters of Religion under the Law, are of as much force under the Gospel. Mens spirits are as licentious and prone to seduce people now as then. The name of God is as much blasphemed, by damna­ble heretical Doctrines. Men are as apt to bee seduced by the subtle craftiness of those that lye in waite to deceive. All m [...]ans, without the Magistrates sword are as ineffectuall; Will such as decry all Churches, deny Christ's Deity, and the Scriptures to be our Rule, care for a bare Church-censure?

4 The judgement of the Ancients, Si omnis, & vestra; Quis vos excipit ab Universitate. Bern. ad Ar­chiep. that lived near the time of Christ, and of the reformed Churches in these last ages, is fully for it. The Fathers generally assert it. Chrysostome in­fers from Rom. 13.1. That even Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets were bound to bee subject to the Magistrate. Constantine was termed the Maintainer of Faith and Religion. Kings (saith Austin) Serve God, as they are men one way, as Kings another; As men they serve God by a faithful obedience to his Laws, But as Kings they serve God by commanding things just, Aug. ad Bonif. and prohibi­ting the unlawful, restraining them with convenient rigour, mak­ing and putting Laws in execution for beating down sin, and pro­moting Gods glory. Thus Hezekiah, thus Josiah served God, and thus Kings become nursing fathers, and Queens Nursing Mo­thers to the Church as it was promised, Isa. 49.23. & 60.16.

The Confessions of the Reformed Churches are exceeding full and unanimous in this point.See Corpus Conf. And most of the Brethren of the Congregational way have seemed to bee suffragators to them herein.Plat-form of Church go­vernment. ch. 17. Those of New-England are very expresse for it: And our five Apologists for that way, courted once the Magistrate to beleeve, that their opinion allowed him more power in matters of Religion than the judgement of others. To the Magistrates power (say they) wee give as much, and as wee think more than the principle. Apologetical Narratio [...]. p. 19. [...] the Presbyterial Government will suffer them to yeild. (which how it may be, I understand not, unlesse in a sense in the which I would not understand it, by [Page 4] giving it more than the principles of their own government will suffer them to yeild,) So that the Churches in all ages are agree­ed that the Magistrate hath power in matters of Religion;Neque enim aliud, aut belli laboribus, aut pacis consilits ordinamus, nisi ut verum Dei cultum, Orbis nostri plebs de­vota custodiat. Theod. & Ho­nor. ad Marcel. Caesarei est muneris ut non solum pa­cifie sed pie etiam subditi vivant. Theod. ad Cyril. (a­gainst which stand onely a small company of dissenters, much­ly led by Anabaptistical unscriptural principles) And accord­ingly the first Christian Princes, and their Successors since, have, with the approbation of godly Bishops and Pastors, ow­ned and exercised it.

But you proceed confidently, ‘Therefore my beloved bre­thren accept no Law-giver but Jesus Christ, neither in Church nor Common-wealth, that will in due time save us, from Devil­lish Government in the Church, and from all worldly govern­ment in Common-weals, when the stone cut out of the Mountain shall smite on the toes of the Image; Then no more place shall bee found for them, no not for the goodliest government, that ever was invented by the wit of man.’

If Christian Magistrates should cause you to suffer for these lines, would you not suffer as an Evil-doer? Doth not the A­postle, Jude 8. call those filthy dreamers that despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities? You proclaim to the world in Print, that for the present, de jure, they have no power neither in things of Religion, nor yet of Civil concernment, and call off men from yeilding that obedience to them, which the Laws of God and man require. You say expresly, that de facto, they shall have no power in matters of Religion, or Civil concernment, in the most glorious times of the Church. And this is the doctrine which by you, and men of your opinion, is still buzzed into the ears of the people, dan­gerous to Rulers, and contrary to the Word of God, and to the blessed example of the Apostles of Christ. They, in the most glorious time of the Church that hath yet been, ne­ver exhorted men to cast off, and cast down Magistrates, though they were then Heathen, but to the contrary, to pray for, and submit to them. And yet the Apostles, un­derstood, I am sure, the Monarchy of the Lord Christ, farre better than you.

That Magistrates have power in matters of Religion hath been proved before; That they s [...]ll have and exercise this power, in the latter and most glorious daies of the Church, may be easily made evident from Scripture.

Isaiah 60. Speaks of a glorious time to the Church, in the daies yet to come, for it speaks of the conversion of the Jews, and the flourishing Church-state ensuing thereon. But the pro­mise there, concerning Magistrates then, is not that they shall bee removed, but reformed and established, verse 17. and made instrumental for the edification of the Church, verse 10, 16. (as Isa. 49, 22, 23.) and this all along that glorious time of the Church, verse 11.

Rev. 21. Is generally understood to speak of the future glorious times of the Church; but not a word there of the end­ing of earthly governments; But on the contrary, verse 24, 25, 26. it is said, The Kings of the earth do bring, and shall bring their glory and honour into the new Jerusalem; and for this end, the gates thereof shall not bee shut.

Zech. 13. Speaks of the latter State of the Church, and verse 3. declares that Heretical seducing Teachers shall then undergo capital punishment,Transfigent, id est, supplicio afficiendum tradent judici­bus. Pisc. His Father and Mother shall thrust hm thorough. Which, Expositors, (and Mr. Burroughs with them) understand of their convening them, out of zeal for Gods glory, before the Christian Magistrate, and so causing them to bee put to death.

From these and many the like places, it is evident that all a­long the most glorious times of the Church, there shall bee Ma­gistrates exercising their power and authority for the Churches good, in matters both of Civil and Religious concernment.

What Government it is, which you call Devilish Government in the Church, you do not here expresly tell us; But your book gives the Reader abundant cause to conclude, that you mean, all Government in the Church but that of your way. And if so, do you know what manner of spirit you were of, when you wrote this passage? Dare you pronounce all Government in the Church besides the Congregational, to bee for the sub­stance of it Devilish, and so all those that exercise it to bee the Servants of the Devil therein? What could the Antichrist of Rome have said more against Protestant Churches? I shall say no more to you at this time but the Lord rebuke thee; And shall now address my self to examine, whether your Treatise doth prove the Protestant Churches, and their Government to bee Antichristian and Devilish, for that's the sad task it under­takes.

SECT. II. Of Mr. P's Text, Rev. 18.4. And the interpretation thereof, and inferences from it; particularly, of the coming out of Babylon, and an Antichristian Church-State.

YOur explication of the Text and its context, had need to have been more clearly and firmly laid, to have borne up such doctrines as you build upon it. But you are mainly for the particular conclusion,P. 5. ‘Wee must depart from the fellowship of Antichristian Churches, that is with you, Protestant Churches, or else wee remaine in Babylon still.’

I shall a little reflect upon your text, and its context, and shew that this conclusion of yours, in the sense mentioned, can of right claime no acquaintance with their import.

In this Revelations 18. Babylons ruine is set forth, 1 By the instrumental causes of it, the Word of Gods mouth denounce­ing it, and drawing off her associates from her, verse 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 By the procuring cause of it, her foule Idolatries and seduce­ings, verse 3. 5. 3 By the consequents of it, the sorrowing and wailing of her followers and lovers, and the great joy of the Church and people of God, verse 9, to 21. I shall particu­larly consider the four first verses.

Verse 1. I saw another Angel come down from Heaven, &c. Pareus understands it in a literal sense. Brightman of some cheif Executioner of Gods wrath, as Commander General of Gods ar­mies against Babylon. But, in regard by Angels in this book, are often meant the Ministers of the Gospel, whose tongues and pens God imploies to discover Antichrists impostures, as Interpreters agree those places mean: Rev. 14.6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18. This Angel may also bee understood to signifie them, since he brings for substance no other message than the former; onely his dis­covery is more clear, being neerer Antichrists ruine; and there­fore, whereas the Angel, Rev. 14.6. is said to flie in the midst of the Heavens; this Angel is said to come down from Heaven, and to cry with a strong voice, and the earth to bee enlightened with his glory. By this Angel, I understand the company of Gods Mi­nisters of the reformed Churches, that have been, and shall bee raised out of the bowels of the territories of Antichrist, who, by their preaching and writing, enlighten the earth, that is, the [Page 7] common sort of Christians, who were before the footstool of Antichrist, and basis of his Hierarchy.

For though this was in a great measure done, at the pouring out of the first viall, upon the Throne of the Beast, when the Waldenses, Albigenses, Hussites, &c. began every where to re­nounce the authority of the beast, calling Rome ecclesiastical, the Apocalyptical Babylon: Yet this vial, is as yet poured out but in part, as are also severall others of the Vials: The dregs of them, and of this in particular, remaining to bee poured upon the beast, in a doctrinal way by this Angel, who shall give the last warning of Babylons instant ruine. The effect whereof is, that the earth is inlightned, that is, many more of the common people, are drawn off from communion with Babylon, and joyn issue with some of the ten horns, fallen off from the Whore, and hating her. But as for her more ho­nourable slaves and vassals, they receive no benefit by the Ministery of this Angell, but either perish in Babylons ruine, or by the dregs of the vials poured out upon her associates.

Vers. 2.Cecidit, ceci­dit, i. e. Paulo post casura, certissime, gra­vissime. Pisc. Here we have the summe of the report of this An­gel, concerning Babylons fall, which is by way of anticipation set down, as actually come to pass, after the manner of the Prophets, to note the certainty of it; and the expression dou­bled, to note the grievousnesse of her fall.

Vers. 3. Here wee have the procuring cause of Babylons fall, her abominable Idolatries, and whoring seducings, wherein shee continueth after convictions, admonitions, and threatnings.

Vers. 4 Here tis observable,Militaris ex­hortatio, ut non solum ab ea secedant, sed et acriter eam oppugnent. Grass. that the Holy Ghost alters the usual manner, and way of witnessing against Babylon; for here is no Angel, but a voice from heaven. It may bee, vox è castris, a voice from the campe. God is mustering up his Armies, and the warre is advancing to the very gates of Rome, and now, the voice of Providence doth thereby cry out aloud, Come out, &c.

By Babylon, I understand with Pareus, &c. not onely the Ci­ty of Rome, but all those places that are under the power and jurisdiction of the Pope, where his authority takes place, and where his idolatrous worship and doctrines, are submitted to, and imbraced. To come out of Babylon, is to renounce communion with her, in her soule sinnes, and abominable I­dolatries [Page 8] and to disclaim and reject the usurped power of An­tichrist, both in temporals, and especially in spirituals. The not doing of this, maketh men her associates, and will cause them to partake of her plagues. Rev. 13.16, 17. Rev. 14.8, 9, 10. and here Rev. 18.3, 4. From these Texts, I observe,

1 That Antichrists sin lies principally in this, that hee caus­eth all, under great penalties, to receive the mark of the name of the beast, in their right hands or foreheads; that is, to own the universal headship of the Pope, especially in spirituals: So that no point of Christian faith must bee received, unless warranted by his authority, and whatsoever is stampt with his authority, must bee owned, though never so contrary to the Scrip­tures.

2 The sin of his followers, lyeth in this, that they resign up themselves in obedience to the Pope, and make him soveraign Lord over their persons, rights, and consciences, in all things; receiving, owning, pleading, fighting for, his abominable Doctrines, worship and usurpation. Kings themselves, sub­mitting their crowns to him, and maintaining by their Laws, and edicts, his blasphemous doctrines, and tyranny.

3 Those onely are threatned, to partake of Babylons plagues, that partake with her in her sins. And who those are, the Holy Ghost tells us, Rev. 13.16, 17. All, and onely they, that re­ceive a marke, the name of the beast, or the number of his name, in their right hand, or in their fore-head. That is, that own the usurped authority of the Pope, and his doctrines and idola­tries, because stampt with his authority, which whosoever doth to the death, cannot bee saved, Rev. 16.3. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as set forth, and confirmed for such, by the Tridentine Council, is this Sea, consisting of the popish errors collected into one body, as many waters meet in the Sea. The Angell that turned this Sea into bloud, might bee among o­thers, Martin Chemuitius, who poured out his vial on it, when hee wrote his Examination of the Trent Council. And every Soul living in this Sea dyed, whosoever owneth the Popish Re­ligion, as set forth by that Councill, and dies in that Faith, can­not bee saved; for what the Apostle saith of one of its anti-Scriptural doctrines, Gal. 5.4. may be said of all of them that rase the foundation.

On the contrary, those that renounce the universal head­ship [Page 9] of the Pope, and all his anti-scriptural doctrines; as, the insufficiency of the Scriptures, the authority and necessity of his traditions, justification by works, praying to glorified Saints and Angels, worshiping Images and Crucifixes, Purgatory and Indulgences, &c. and withal abhorre and renounce his Idola­trous worship, and profess themselves resolved, to resist unto blood, rather than hold communion with him in his sins: All such persons and Churches, are come out of Babylon already. And among such are, the Protestant Churches in England, Scotland, Holland, France, Germany, &c. professing the sound doctrines of the Gospel, in opposition to Antichrists Idolatries. How those Churches that disown, and reject the corrupt doctrine, and worship of the Roman Church, and have sealed their witness against them with their blood, being by their profession and suf­ferings, the instruments whereby God hath shaken the King­dome of the Beast; How these Churches should yet bee An­tichristian limbs of the Beast, may well bee a Mystery to all considerate and unprejudiced men.

And whereas Mr. P. beleeves, that none, save a few separate Churches, named Congregational, are yet come out of Babylon, (which the Brownists, Anabaptists, Quakers, &c. plead each for themselves) I have one text to offer to his consideration there­upon, which is, Rev. 14.1, 2, 3, 4.

1 By the Lamb, is undoubtedly meant the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Mount-Sion is opposed to Babylon, the Gospel-Church, to the Church Antichristian.

3 The 144000 that stand upon Mount-Sion (a definite number for an indefinite) and have their Fathers name writ­ten in their fore-heads, must therefore bee members of the true Church, in opposition to the members of the Church of Anti-Christ, who have his name, or mark in their right hand or fore­head.

4 By their having their Fathers name written in their fore­head, is therefore hinted, their keeping close, in the main, to Gods institutions, in profession and worship, in opposition to the Idolatries of the Antichristian Church. Which further ap­pears, in that it is said, that they are not defiled with women, vers. 4. that is, with the Idolatries of the great Whore. Now can any man say, that those of whom the holy Ghost thus speaketh, are yet in Babylon? How can they bee upon Mount-Sion, and yet in Babylon too?

[Page 10]5 The 144000 signifie some definite number of the peo­ple of God, that in all ages, from the first rise of Antichrists Kingdome, have cleaved to the Lamb, and kept a true Church-State, which is signified by their standing with the Lamb up­on Mount-Sion, with their Fathers name, &c. That their stand­ing, synchronizeth with the standing of the Antichristian Church, appeareth, Rev. 13.16, 17. with the four first verses of the 14th. Chapter. For the company of the Lambs marked ones, is opposite to the Beasts whole marked company, whilst it was such; whilst the Church-State of the Beast was false and corrupt, the Church-State of the 144000 was true. And it is said, they were not defiled with women, which argues that the Whore was at the time of their standing, seducing. And the Apostle John, at the same time, sees an Angel going forth, and crying,Forbes. Gyffard Fulk. Deut. Fox. Bernard. Broughton. Babylon is fallen. Accordingly, Brightman, Mede, and sundry other worthy Expositors, understand this context of the 144000 to denote the true Church of God, in the midst of whom Christ reigned, who were fed with purer ordinances, and worship, during Antichrists reign, and standing out all a­long against his Idolatry.

Now seeing the Congregational Churches are as it were but of yesterday: who are those 144000 that have stood with the Lamb upon Mount-Sion, all along the time of Antichrists reign? Either you must assert the loss of a true Church-State in the world for many ages past; or else you must acknowledge, that the Churches that have maintained a true profession, all along the time of Antichrists reign, were true Churches, and that the Protestant Churches that have owned and maintained the same profession to this day, have been, and are true Churches, and are in the number of the 144000. If you dare not say the former (as I suppose you do not) you must confess the latter; and then, with what face or reason will you justifie that separa­tion from them, as Antichristian Churches, which you contend for?

Consider, I beseech you, what you have to answer for before the Lord, in branding all the Christian Churches in the world, from the rise of Antichrist to this day, who have disowned and opposed him (except a few separate Congregations of these lat­ter daies) as false and Antichristian Churches. And the Lord give you repentance from this rash and unchristian dealing.

SECT. III. Of National Churches.

‘CIvil co-habitation with wicked men is dangerous; Eccle­siastical communion with them in the times of the Gospel,p. 6, 7, 8. much more dangerous and unwarrantable, 1 Cor. 5.1. To worship God with a strange worship, is to worship a strange God. Stephen lost his life, for preaching against the Temple, and so consequently against the Jews National Church, the bond of which was, their meeting together at the Temple, in one individual worship.’

That the Church is not of the world, all grant; but that it should not bee in the world, is strange. Christ gives his Dis­ciples leave, when persecuted in one City, to flie to another, Matth. 10.23. but never requires his followers to forsake their habitations, because neer wicked neighbours. As for that, 1 Cor. 5. touching the incestuous person, it is uncharitably ma­naged by you, for separation from Protestant Churches, who contend for the excommunicating of scandalous persons to their power; But it commeth too close to YOUR OWN DOOR, verbum sapienti sat. The other Texts you men­tion, set forth the danger of society and intimate converse and communion with Idolaters, but fasten not upon us, because our Churches are not Idolatrous, nor our worship strange worship, not grounded upon the Word, as shall bee made appear.

In what you alledge of Stephens bearing testimony against the National Church of the Jews, and so consequently (as you would bee understood) against all National Churches, as incon­sistent with Gospel times; the consequence follows, not by Stephens Logick, but your own. For how doth it appear, that because hee preached against the Temple, and the Ceremonial-Law, as things which had an end put to them by the death of Christ; therefore hee preached against a National Church, as inconsistent with Gospel times, in respect of the Nationality of it? Or that a National Church, purely in respect of its Na­tionality (considered without the adjuncts of one single person, as the head of it, and one single place of worship, to which all should repaire at some set time; for you know wee plead not for these things, but acknowledge them to have been peculiar [Page 12] to the Church of the Jews) is contrary to the institution of Christ, and his Apostles in the New Testament?

If it bee said, wee have no example of a National Church in the time of the Apostles, nor yet in the times of the primitive Church: This cannot bee an objection of weight. For in those times, whole Nations were not converted to the profession of the Gospel, and Magistrates, in most of them were bloody persecutors of the Christian profession. But yet,

See Divine right of the Mi­nistery of Eng­land, p. 12. 13.1 Wee have both prophecies and promises in the Old Testa­ment, of National Churches under the Gospel: Psa. 72.10, 11, 17. and Isa. 19.18. to the end. Here 'tis prophecied and promised, that Nations shall serve God, and bee his people, and that they shall combine, and hold communion with one ano­ther, for the better carrying on of Gods service and worship, and God approveth of them, and blesseth them upon that ac­count.

2 There have been National Christian Churches in the world, since the primitive times, according to the Apostle Johns historical prophecie. Rev. 12.7, 8, 9. wee have a short description of the Heathen Emperours,See History of the life of Con­stantine. Maxentius, Licinus, Maximius, overthrown by the victorious armes of Constantine the Great, the Man-child that the Church brought forth; and now saies verse 10. is come salvation, and strength, and the King­dome of our God, and the power of his Christ; to wit, brought into the Roman Empire, Persecutors, Idolatry, and Heresie being suppressed, and Christian religion countenanced, professed, promoted by the godly zeal of Constantine in his dominions. Again, Rev. 11. Wee have a description of the downfall of Antichrist, verse 13. the tenth part of the City fell (many of the places under the Roman jurisdiction cast off the Pope) then it followes, verse 15. The Kingdomes of this world are become the Kingdomes of the Lord, and of his Christ. The Kingdomes which before were the Kingdomes of the Beast, become professedly subject to the Laws of Christ, and embrace his Gospel, which our eyes have been so happy as in part to see.

And indeed, considering that the Nationality of a Church lies properly in this, that the body of a Nation, living under one Civil Government, and professing the Gospel, should have one way of Doctrine and Worship, established in all the Congrega­tions of it, and one way of Government by greater and lesser As­semblies: [Page 13] how such a constitution as this should bee contrary to the mind of God concerning Churches, under the New Te­stament, I do not see, nor beleeve any man can demonstrate.

SECT. IV. Of Parish Churches, Ministers maintenance, the Churches of Eng­land, the Witnesses, and Separation.

‘I Shall now explain what I mean by Antichristian Churches.P. 9, 10, 11 And first I mean Parish-Churches, to prove which to bee Anti­christian, I shall shew what I finde storied of their Original, &c.’

You cannot prove the Original of Parish-Churches to be from Rome, Quid certi, aut explorati, a tempore Tra­jani, ad impe­rium Constan­tini haberet Ec­clesia, si Divi­num thesaurum non haberet? however confident your small reading maketh you of it. Your borrowed relation, concerning Cletus and Evaristus, is not much to bee valued, as neither are most of the Histories of the Church, for the first three hundred years. And if this re­lation were true, the thing is still unproved; for I finde it record­ed of Ignatius, who as some say, was Peters successor at An­tioch, and suffered Martyrdome in the eleventh year of Trajan; that being sent from Syria, because hee professed Christ to Rome, where hee suffered; when hee passed thorough Asia, hee strengthened and confirmed the Parishes, through all the Cities, as hee went, with his exhortations and preaching. So that these Parishes are ancienter than those of Rome. But, if it were grant­ed, that Parishes had their Original at Rome, about the time you speak of, it makes not to your purpose, and that for two Reasons.

1 Because Rome then was, and long after continued to bee a pure Church of Christ, affording many Martyrs, that sealed the truth with their blood; therefore division of Parishes is not in its Original from Antichrist. But, you think you have pre­vented this answer sufficiently, by saying, ‘Neither doth it help,P. 13. that Parish-Churches derive their pedigree from times so neer the Apostles, for the mystery of iniquity did work even in Pauls time.’ If you could prove that the mystery of iniquity sprung up in Rome, or chiefly there, in the Apostles daies, you would have some (though but a slender and insufficient) ground to think that Parishes, if they began there, are Antichristian.

But, from Scripture, and Church-history, no such thing ap­pears. In the Apostles daies, Diotrephes is charged with aspi­ring [Page 14] towards an universal Headship, 3 John 9, 10. The Church of the Galatians, mingleth works with Christs righteousness for justification, and are by this peece of Popery in danger of the loss of salvation, Gal. 3.1, 2, 3, 4. The doctrine of wor­shiping of Angels, creeps in Apostle-times into the Church of Colosse, Col. 2.18. But all this while, the Church of Rome keeps her garments undefiled, of these, and the like abominations, and for a sound profession of faith, is famous throughout the whole Christian world, Rom. 1.8. And long after this, and even in that very time, wherein you suppose the division of Rome in­to Parishes, the Saints there sacrificed their lives in the flames to God, in the maintenance of the profession of the Christian doctrine. And yet Mr. P. is so charitable, that to maintain a Fable that hee thinks will serve his turne, the Church of Rome must needs bee then Antichristian.

2 Because it cannot bee made to appear, that Parish divi­sions, as such, have in them the least evil, or appearance of e­vil. Without divisions according to co-habitation, within certain bounds, Christians cannot conveniently meet to wor­ship, nor Ministers and people discharge their mutual duties. I no way doubt, but that they have ever been in use, when they might bee had, in the Church of God. The Jews had their se­veral Synagogues for several vicinities. And it is very proba­ble, that the Apostles in planting Churches, observed such di­visions, as farre as might bee; They ordained them Elders in eve­ry City, But in many Cities, the Church consisted in each of several Congregations (as shall bee evidenced, Sect. 5.) and 'tis most probable, that these were distinguished, to attend on their respective Elders, according to the neerness of their ha­bitation, to the several meeting-places. However, beleevers are still found in Scripture, to have ecclesiastically imbodied in the places of their habitation, as those in Ephesus, Corinth, &c. And is not this sufficient warrant for Parochial Congregations, as such, that is, the Ecclesiastical imbodying of such, in a vici­nity, as profess the Gospel?

But now, the way of gathering Churches, used by most of the Congregational Brethren, and your self, picking some out of one Parish, and some out of another, and that without the leave, and against the mind of their godly Ministers (who in­deavour after reformation, and the use of all Ordinances, ac­cording [Page 15] to Gods mind in their places, but are hindered there­in, to your might, by your sinister dealings) and some of those members, so many miles distant that you are thereby utterly disabled from discharging mutual duties, this way and practice is altogether a stranger to the Word of God, and sound reason, and hath more than an appearance of evil in it.

‘There is nothing in Scripture of limitation of Churches by the Ministers function; or maintenance, by the edicts of Popes,P. 13. Bishops, or Princes of this world. And it is enough against a thing belonging to the worship of God, that there is no insti­tution for it, that the Scripture speaks nothing of it.’

Then, surely it concerns you to look about you. Where have you an institution for uniting in a single Congregation, mem­bers living at such a distance from one another, as your pra­ctice doth? and undertaking to bee a Pastor to a scattered peo­ple, over whose souls it is impossible you should watch? and urging an explicite Covenant, as necessary for admission? &c. As for limitation of Churches by the Ministers function, how is your Church distinguished from other Churches, but by your taking the charge of the members thereof, to watch for their souls? (how well or possible you can do it, it concernes you to see to) and is not this limitation of a Church, by the Ministers function? That the Scripture saies nothing of Ministers main­tenance, by the edicts of Princes of this world, is true, if you mean de facto that Scripture gives no example of maintenance thus appointed and raised; Princes, when the Gospel was pen­ned, had power to raise maintenance for the Ministery, but would not, being enemies to the Church. But to argue, that because Scripture gives no example of it, Christian Magistrates, who are by Scripture appointment, to bee nursing Fathers and Mothers to the Church, may not by their Edicts, Laws, and Power settle a sufficient revenue upon the Ministers of the Church, is vain and frivolous; and the result of it is, which seems to bee your meaning, that the maintenance of the Mini­sters must bee by the peoples free will, and they must live upon the Almes of the Church. That this is not the mind of God, but that a certain liberal maintenance is by Gods ordinance due to the Ministers of the Gospel, is from Scripture very clear.

1. Because God established a certain liberal Maintenance, for [Page 16] the Priests and Levites under the Law, as appeareth by the books of Moses; And godly Magistrates, quickened up by their royal commands, the backward people to pay it, 2 Chron. 31.4, 5. whose examples are preceptive to Christian Magistrates now. And shall wee think that God bears a less tender respect to a Gospel, than to a Legal Ministery? neither appointing them a certain maintenance, nor means to raise it, if it bee with-held.

2 Dependance upon voluntary contributions, is the ready way to tempt Ministers to bee the greatest temporizers in the world, since it will force many of them to please their givers, or starve.

3 Duties required of Ministers under the Gospel, call for a liberal and certain maintenance. They must bee given to hospi­tality: But they cannot exercise it, without a maintenance libe­ral and certain.

4 That command to hearers of the Gospel, Gal. 6.6, 7. leaves not men to their liberty, but chargeth a duty upon their consciences, which they cannot neglect without mocking God.

5 Ministers may require this maintenance in an authorita­tive way, as an absolute due debt, for their work in the Ministe­ry, 1 Cor. 9.11, 12, 13, 14.

Now, a liberal maintenance being by Gods Ordinance due to the Gospel Ministery, what hinders, but that the fixing of it should bee a lawful, yea a necessary means for their injoying of it. Before there were any Christian Magistrates in the world, the revenue of the Church was not altogether unsetled. Con­stantine the first Christian Emperour, being come to the Crown, enacts, that the Church Lands or goods, that had been injuri­ously taken away, though annext to his own Crown, should bee restored, that such as had purchased Church-Lands, should make present restitution of the same. These lands and pos­sessions were, 'tis probable, long before purchased out of the publick bank of the mony laid at the Apostles feet, and other charitable donations since that time, and setled upon the Church, that so Ministers having some certain maintenance, might serve God in their places with the less distraction. And therefore the building Oratories and Churches, and endowing them with maintenance, for the certain support of fixed Mini­sters, which you make the object of your contempt, appears to [Page 17] bee in it self considered, a lively imitation of primitive pra­ctice.

These things considered, I demand,

1 Where a maintenance is already established, and hath been so for many hundreds of years together, and that by as firme Laws as any man hath for his personal estate; Whether now, the Magistrate may not animate those Laws, and make meet new ones, for the due payment of that established mainte­nance, as Hezekiah did? 1 Chron. 31.4.

2 Where maintenance is wanting, whether the Magistrate may not provide and settle it, by a levy upon the people? See­ing 'tis Gods ordinance there should bee a liberal maintenance, and that many people, if left to themselves, will rather want the Gospel, than bee at charge for it; and that it is a duty in­cumbent on the Christian Magistrate, to provide for the good of mens souls, and for the continuance, support, and in­couragement of the Ministery for that end.

But to returne to Parish-Churches; you say,

‘Consider, what Babels of confusion, and superstition they bee. Here you may see Saints and sinners jumbled together, without any kindly separation of the precious from the vile. Great care, that all may bee consecrated, but the worshippers. Are they not given unto the Gentiles?P. 13, 19, 20 do not men of uncircumcised hearts (for so are the Major part, in those Churches) stand seized of the power of the keyes? Let us say to those christened Gentiles, that upon pretence of being of the same Religion, and Church with us, would interess themselves, in rebuilding our Gospel-Temple, as the Jews did to the Samaritanes, Ezra 4.1, 2, 3.’

Specious arguments to take ignorant persons. 'Tis common with those of your way, to argue against the Church-state of Churches, from the corruptions in manners which are found in them. Whereas the Scripture every where declares such an arguing to bee of no force; witness its owning the Church of the Jews, as such, under its great, and severely reprovered cor­ruptions. So the degenrate Churches of Asia, dead Sardis, and lukewarme and miserable Laodicea. If a man fix his eye on those Churches, under their then condition, and apply your charge to them (as hee may) and thence conclude, that they were no true Chruches, will hee not contradict the holy Ghost, and the Truth? and what then doth your arguing prove? [Page 18] Whatever corruption is in out Churches, wee make as much the matter of our grief, as you of your scorn, and are as ready to bear witness against it, as your self; But not with you, to in­courage the sin of separation, but to advance the duty of reforma­tion. This many Church-guides do zealously indeavour after in our Churches, so unjust is your charge, generally fastened upon them, that they take care, all may bee consecrated, but the worshippers, and that they make no kindly separation, of the pre­cious from the vile. You seem to make use of a bad rule, Ca­lumniare fort it er aliquid haerebit. Your own knowledge of the contrary to your charge, in many Parish-Congregations, should make you blush for these expressions. And truly that they are no more reformed, and others in no way for reformation, may bee as much ascribed to the practices of your self, and many of your way, in drawing off from them helpful members, and hindring endeavours for healing and restauration, as to a­ny other single cause, yea as to many of them put together. And had not men of your way, in a time, when uniformity in worship according to the Word, was about to have been esta­blished by the Magistrate in the Churches of England, hindered that good work: 'tis very probable, that reformation had been much forwarded in our Churches at this day, and many of our civil shakings and overturnings prevented thereby. Your comparing of those, that comply not with your opinion, in matter of Church-State and Government, to the Idolatrous Samaritans, and loading them with the opprobrious name of christened Gentiles, is very devoid of modesty and truth. Many Church-guides in our Congregations are as free from the least taint of Superstition, as any of your way. And for the mem­bers of our Churches, who have been baptized in them, and owne their Baptisme, though the most of them do not appear to bee godly, yet they differ very much from Heathens, being taken into an external Covenant with God, and in the number of those that are called; And are as much the people of God, as sometime formal and prophane Israelites were; the estate of the Gentiles at this day, to whom the ordinances are given, being not inferiour to that of Israelites of old; Rom. 11.17. And therefore as the Infants of the Israelites had generally right to Circumcision: So have the children of Professors of Christianity, owning their Baptisme (though corrupt in their conversation, [Page 19] but promising reformation) right to Baptisme. Else were the grace of God streighter under the Gospel, than before Christ was exhibited in the flesh, which cannot bee.

But you have this more against our Churches, that men of un­circumcised hearts stand seized of the power of the keyes in them, because the major part are such in our Churches.

Petitio principij! As if the people had the power of the keyes committed to them; you know wee owne not that doctrine.

Church-guides, have the power of the keyes committed to them, and many of such among us, are to bee reputed godly. And, if in most places, wicked men stand seized of the power of the Keyes, yet this will not serve to justifie separation from our Churches, as false and Antichristian. The wicked Scribes and Pharisees stood seized of the power of the Keyes in the Church of the Jews, and yet Christ with his Disciples held communion with that Church, and gives no encouragement to separation from it, whilest hee had not set up a new Church-State, Mat. 23.1, 2, 3.

Your prudential consideration for separation, ‘That there is no probability of reforming our Churches,P. 20, 21, 22 because the greatest part in them are wicked, and will hinder the work;’ which you strengthen with a passage, out of the Epistle to the Little Stone; Is certainly an argument which the Prophets and holy people of God, in the Church of the Jews, were not acquainted with, or thought not to bee of force, to warrant them to separate, or to neglect indeavours for reformation. Neither doth Jesus Christ look upon such a reasoning, or the ground for it, as suf­ficient to excuse the Angels of, and Christians in the Churches of dead Sardis, and wretched Laodicea (who might plead the same improbability of reformation) from putting forth their utmost indeavours for it. Your Prudence would it seems have taught them, that they might spare themselves a labour, and ra­ther gather new Churches, than stand about a work so unlike­ly to bee effected as the reforming of the old. But surely, the Spirit that spake by the Prophets, exhorting to indeavours for reformation in the Church of the Jews (as miserably corrupted at least as our Churches) and the command of our Lord, pres­sing the same duty upon the Churches of Asia; do excuse us from practising by your prudential consideration, and teacheth us to do our duty for reformation, and leave the successe to the Al­mighty [Page 20] God, depending upon him by faith. And I doubt not but that it all Church-guides, and pious Christians in our Churches, would to their power joyn, and set about this work, wee should finde the Lord dispelling our fears, facilitating the work, and shaming us for our distrust. But you say,

‘ [...]. 16.If wee would make a kindly reformation, wee must not build on Antichrists foundation, but returne to primitive practice.’

Agreed, But, in regard it doth not appear, that Parish-Churches had their original from Antichrist; and that it ap­pears, that Primitive Churches were made up of co-habiting, or neighbouring families: this puts no necessity upon us, of demolishing, or forsaking Parish-Churches, in order to a re­formation; no more than the duty of repenting, reforming, and conforming to Primitive patternes, did upon Sardis and Laodicea, to forsake their then Church-standing, and erect new Congregations.

‘Christs Church-State, and Antichrist are opposed, Rev. 11.1, 2, 3, 4. The witnesses against this, are impowered and specifi­ed to bee the two Olive-trees (noting Magistracy and Ministery) and the two Candlesticks (noting Churches) that arise against the Antichristian Church-State. At least, at the latter end of An­tichrists reign, [...] 17, 18 shall the testimony bee mannaged, by separating Congregations. The Holy Ghost speaks plainly for separating, not onely from the corruptions of the Antichristian Church, but from the Antichristian Church-State it self.’

Can Mr. P. bee so blind, as not to see, or so wilful, as not to acknowledge, that Protestant Churches, are Churches separa­ting from the Antichristian Church, and from its Antichristian Church-State? and that they have been witnesses against them, from the beginning of their appearing to this day? What? was the Antichristian Church, and Church-State, never sepa­rated from, till Independent Congregations came of late to bee erected, who separate from Churches, that separate from Rome? Grant, that there remaine some Antichristian corrup­tions in Protestant Churches (I am sure there do in the Indepen­dent, and those of a higher nature, For Schisme, and Separati­on from all the Churches of Christ but their own, is an Anti­christian corruption, of one of the first magnitudes, The Ro­manists, being the great Schismatick, and Separatists;) will it follow, that Protestant Churches, while they, in the main, re­nounce, [Page 21] forsake, and protest against Romes pretended Supre­macy, and her abominable doctrines, Idolatry and worship; are not Churches separating from Rome, and witnessing against her? What Churches, in the last ages to these late years, have mannaged the testimony against Antichrist, but Protestant Churches, that separated from him, and sealed their testimony with their blood? (whereon ours have not done the least.) And must wee now look upon them, as Churches still in Rome, strip them of the glory of being witnesses against her, despise the suf­ferings undergone by them, for refusing to own and subject to her? And own, as Churches separate from Rome, and witnessing against her, onely a very small number, of late Con­gregations, in this corner of the world, who have little by pro­fession, and nothing by suffering, witnessed against Rome, but much inveighed against, and separated from Protestant, Rome-opposing Churches, to the great service of Rome? Surely Mr. P. must bring better proof of it, than hee doth, before it can per­swade, or deserve our beleef.

But let us weigh his device concerning the witnesses where­by hee presumes to make it out.

1 Hee will have the two Olive-trees, to note Magistracy and Ministery, and the two Candlesticks, Churches. But wee have but his word for it. The holy Ghost doth not there di­stinguish the witnesses, but saies of them both, These are the two, Olive-trees, and the two Candlesticks.

2 Hee saith, In the latter end of Antichrists reign, the Te­stimony shall bee mannaged by separating Congregations. Where­as, the holy Ghost doth not set forth two sorts of witnesses in different times, but saies that the same shall prophesie in sack­cloath one thousand two hundred and sixty dayes, during the whole time of Antichrists reign.

My apprehensions of the witnesses, according to Scripture, are these. Three paire of Types wee finde of them in the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron in the Wilderness, Elias and Elisha under the Baalitical Apostacy, Zerubbabel and Joshuah under the Babylonish Captivity: And the holy Ghost alludes to some­what famous, in the history of the lives of these persons, which is answered, with something parallel, in the two witnesses. Verse 4. alludes to Zerubbabel and Joshuah, who are called two Olive-trees, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth, Zach. 4.

Verse 3, 5. And the former part of the sixth allude to Elias and Elisha, who witnessed against the Apostacy, and Idolatry of their times, and more particularly to Elias, who destroyed his enemies by fire, and did, by his prayers, open and shut Hea­ven, 2 Kings 1. James 5.17, 18. Verse 6. the latter part al­ludes to Moses and Aaron, who did turne the waters to blood, and did smite the Egyptian earth with all Plagues, Exod. 7.

Now it is observable, 1 That in two of these three paire of types, one beares the person of a Magistrate, the other of a Minister or Prophet. Moses and Zerubbabel were Magi­strates, Aaron and Joshuah Ministers. 2 That in the times of the Baalitical Apostacy, which answers most fitly to the times of the Apostacy of Antichrist, the witnesses are onely Prophets, Elias and Elisha. 3 That wee have in these three paire of types, four Prophets for two Magistrates.

These things considered, By the two Witnesses, I understand Magistrates and Ministers, some of both sorts, who have in their several ages, witnessed against Antichrist; from the very first rise of him, down to our times. But in no age, have Prophets been wanting to this office and work, whereas, Ma­gistrates appear in it, at some times onely; as, 1 In the begin­ning of reformation, in a Land or Nation, as Moses appeared with Aaron. when the people were brought out of Egypt, to serve the Lord; and Zerubbabel appears with Joshua, in the beginning of the reformation, after the Babylonish captivity.

2 Towards the end of Antichrists reign, Rev. 17.16. But now, the Prophets, they must prophesie in sackcloth one thousand two hundred and sixty daies, that is, all along the Tyranny of Antichrist, which hath been in great part, made good by the event.

This being so, overthrows his notion of the Witnesses, neither can Congregational Ministers, bee any otherwise reckoned, any part of the Witnesses, than as they are taken in conjunction, with the other godly Ministers of this and other reformed, and Rome-renouncing Churches, that have, and in this age do stand up, as a part of the two Witnesses against Antichrist, and for Gods truth and worship. And though, in a large sense, all those may bee reckoned, as witnesses against Antichrist; that have made open profession of the grand truths of the Gospel, in op­position to Antichrist, and those, who have laid down their [Page 23] lives in that witness: Yet, in a strict sense, Effecta, quae efficiunt Prae­c [...]nes illi, in electis duo, consolatio & il­luminatio; quarom illa significatur no­mine Olearum; ista vero no­mine Candela­brorum. Pisc. [the Witnesses are Magistrates and Ministers, and yet more especially, Ministers, who have in all ages, opposed themselves to Antichrists Ido­latries. These are the two Olive-trees, and the two Candlesticks that enlighten, comfort, and feed the Church of God, during the whole time of Antichrists reign, Rev. 11.3, 4. and Rev. 12.6. compared.

To what you cite, out of the Epistle to the Little-stone, that, ‘Almost nine parts of ten, in the Churches of Scotland, are not sheep, nor fit for civil, much less for spiritual priviledges:’ I answer,P. 21. I am not easily induced to beleeve the State of the Church of Scotland, to bee so corrupt; considering what an ho­nourable testimony holy Mr. Burroughs hath given concerning it, Lect. 13. on Hosea, p. 368. And whereas it is said, that "many of the sheep there, turne head against their Shepherds. The more, I say, is the pity. But certainly the reason of it is, the present laxness of Church-Government (to which, those of your way, contribute not a little) and which, if it should re­cover its ancient vigour, and strength, and beauty, would re­medy this evil. And I beleeve, some Brethren of the Congrega­nal way have cause enough to make the same complaint of their Sheep. One of them, godly, and learned, told mee some few years ago, that their people were grown to such a passe, that they knew not what to do with them. Mr. W. G. And how many sad proofs have wee seen hereof, in these late years?

‘Neither let it seem harsh, to any that admire the antiquity of Churches in England, which they conceive began to bee planted, by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, that I press the casting out of the Parish-Churches, the deemed successors of them. They retain not their priviledge, whose neither constitution, nor conversation, they can bee found to imitate. And wee know,P. 24, 25. that the Holy Ghost teacheth us to say of as few as may bee, to give a valid testimony against the Antichristians, of two witnessing Churches; These are the two Candlesticks (i. e. Churches) standing before the God of the earth. Whereby the Churchdome of these witnessing separated Churches, is, not onely established, and approved, but the much claimed Churchdome of others re­jected.’

Your prohibition cannot hinder it from seeming harsh, not onely to us, but also to some Congregational Brethren, that you [Page 24] should unchurch our Churches,Way. p. 54 because Parochial. It appears (saith Mr. Cotton) to bee an errour, to say, there is no limitation or distinction of Parishes, Way. p. 112. meaning of Churches jure divino; and (speaking of the Churches of England;) All the work now is, not to make them Churches, which were none before, but to reduce, and restore them to their primitive Institution. Your self, do not deny our Parish-Churches, to bee the successors of the Churches planted here, by the mentioned worthies; and on that account one would think, reformation should serve your turne, without rising so high as separation. But this you think will beare you out, that they do not imitate the constitution, nor conversation of those first Churches. If you should go about to prove either part of this assertion (which you wisely forbeare to do) you would finde a hard task of it; Because it is not possible, you should certainly know, what was the constitution or conversa­tion of those first Churches. But I shall grant, and do beleeve, ours do not generally imitate their conversation, being more corrupted in manners, through the neglect of Discipline. And what then? doth the Scripture any where teach you, that cor­ruption in manners, yea in many regards in administration, and use of ordinances, whilst the fundamentals, and essentials are retained, in doctrine and worship, is a sufficient ground for Separation? I provoke you to make that appear. And indeed this is the point, that you Separatists stand bound to make good, and which if you cannot (as I am sure you cannot from the Word) all your declamations against our Churches, will not a whit free you from the guilt of Schisme.

As for the other branch, of not imitating their constitution, 'tis a charge, as weakly bottomed, and inferring as the other. For, the particular constitution of those Churches, is, as I have said, unknown to you, and our Churches, are not now newly con­stituting, but have been long constituted, and are successors of those first Churches. And no more unchurched, and necessi­tated to bee newly constituted, by the intervention of Papal corruptions, then the Church of Israel was, by the intervention of heathenish Idolatries in it, during the reign of bad Kings. And that way of constitution, still holds our Churches in their State, which gave and maintained an ecclesiastical being, to the Apostolical Churches, even the professing and owning of the doctrines of the Gospel in them, and the associating under [Page 25] Pastors, for the use of Ordinances. Which, though defective among us, in some points that concern the bene esse, yet are so far found, as suffice to maintain the esse of our Churches. So that notwithstanding your prohibiting us, to account your Ma­gisterial pressing of the casting out of Parish-Churches, harsh: it is, and must bee looked upon by us, as very harsh, arrogant, unjust, and unchristian; having no ground in reason, nor ground or example in Scripture, to countenance it.

The Text you here build upon, Rev. 11.4 for the strength­ning of your excommunicating sentence, past upon all Protestant Churches, that are not of your way, maketh not at all for you, but much against you (as hath been in part shewed;) for,

1 The two Candlesticks, cannot mean Churches properly, or peculiarly, but the Witnesses in general, whom the Holy Ghost calleth both the two Olive-trees, and the two Candle­sticks.

2 That which is attributed to the Candlesticks with the Olive-trees, verse 5, 6. that fire goes out of their mouth, &c. is proper to the guides of the Church, and not to the Churches, as ap­pears by viewing the types of the Witnesses, as hath been be­fore cleared.

3 The Holy Ghost had spoken of the Church, and its state under persecution, before, verse 1. The false Church-State is also spoken of, verse 2. and vers. 3, 4, 5, 6. the Holy Ghost proceeds to describe the two Witnesses, and their condition, during the whole time of Antichrists reign, distinguishing them from the Church, as those that are chief in it, and are singled out, and inabled to act in a way of eminency, for the manife­station of Gods glory, and for the Churches good. Accord­ingly, they are called the two Olive-trees, and the two Candle­sticks, to note them to be instruments, bringing, in a way of office, comfort and illumination to the Church. There being a manifest allusion to Zech. 4.11, &c. So that the two Olive-trees, as well as the two Candlesticks, mean the Witnesses, as they are distinct from the Churches, by way of eminency and office. Though the Churches do witness, yet they are not The Witnesses. The Witnesses guide and feed the Church, Rev. 12.6.

But you say; ‘The Candlesticks,P. 17 in the language of the Re­velation, chap. 1.20. are Churches, therefore they are so to bee interpreted, Rev. 11.4.’

[Page 26]1 I answer, It follows not. For, in the former Text, they are exprest to mean so, but in the latter not, and the circum­stances lead us to interpret them otherwise, as hath been said.

2 In the former Text, there is a clear distinction, between the Stars, and the Candlesticks; the one are the Angels, the o­ther the Churches; But in the latter, the Holy Ghost makes the Olive-trees and the Candlesticks all one. Therefore, if the two Olive-trees are the Magistracy, and the Ministery, as you grant, p. 18. you must needs acknowledge, the two Candle­sticks to bee so, and not to bee the Churches, as you affirme, in opposition to the Text, and your self.

But, supposing (not granting) the Candlesticks here, to mean Churches; will it follow hence, that the Churches of your way, are owned, to the rejection of all others, as you mo­destly beare your reader in hand? Or, doth not the contrary rather follow?

For consider, These two Candlesticks, are said to stand be­fore God, during the whole time of Antichrists reign. But se­parated Churches, are but of yesterday, and therefore, if they bee in the number of, yet they cannot bee the onely witnessing Churches. Seeming to bee aware of this, you say, p. 18. At least, at the latter end of Antichrists reign, shall the testimony bee managed, by separating Congregations, Indeed, if they bee witnesses, they must bee so onely at the latter end of his reign, for they had no existence before. But you are not aware, how you wound your cause, by the shift which you thought would help it. For separate Churches, arising at the latter end of An­tichrists reign, and having the dignity of being the witnesses appropriated to them by you; It will follow hence, that till the latter end of Antichrists reign, there have been no witnessing Churches in the world; whereas the Holy Ghost saith expresly, that the Candlesticks (which you call Churches) shall prophesie a thousand two hundred and sixty daies, which is all the time of An­tichrists reign. And you have no way to free your self from con­tradicting the Holy Ghost, but by acknowledging (whilst you keep to your notion, of accounting the Candlesticks Churches) that the Churches that renounced Antichrist, from the begin­ning of his reign, to the rise of the separate Churches, were witnessing Churches; Which doth (by your own rule) esta­blish [Page 27] the Churchdome of the Easterne, Westerne, and late Protestant Churches, that have renounced Antichrist, all along his reign hitherto; And (say I) call in question the Churchdome of your Congregations, that separate from the witnesses against An­tichrist.

I suppose the Reader sees that your Arrow flies back in your face, and that though your own postulatum (of inter­preting the Candlesticks Churches) should bee granted you: Your excommunicatory sentence, is no more to bee dreaded than the Pope's, with whom you joyn issue, in reprobating Pro­testant Churches, that you may appropriate Churchdome to those of your way.

And, as posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa, you fore-seeing that the paucity (as well as novelty) of your Churches, is like to inconvenience your cause; go about to salve the matter, with this weak conceit; that, because the Candlesticks, which you have interpreted to be Churches, are said to bee two, therefore separate Congregations, who are fewer than others, must bee meant thereby, their Churchdome thereby established, and the Churchdome of others thereby rejected. Wonderful subtilty! Quidlibet ex quolibet. What shall by this argument become, I pray you, of the one hundred forty four thousand, and of the great multitude of Palm-bearers, which no man could number of all Nations, and Kinreds, and People, and Tongues? Surely they are too many to bee the Separate Churches, therefore by Mr. P's doctrine, their Church-dome is rejected, though they stand be­fore the Lamb, and with him upon Mount Sion. Is not this rare Divinity? By the same reason, any Sect that is not so nume­rous as that of Congregational Churches, may rob them of their pretended Churchdome, and appropriate it to themselves, be­cause they being fewer, are more likely to bee meant by the Candlesticks, which are said to bee two. Surely, the conceit is not worth more words, nor so many. 'Tis plain, that any number may bee signified by two, and that Eastern and Prote­stant Churches, renouncing Rome, have been few in compari­son of Antichristian Churches, and that the Churches witnessing against Antichrist, are held out in the Revelation, as increasing toward the latter end of Antichrists reign, and arising out of all Nations, in great numbers, out of which proceed the seven An­gels, to poure the seven last plagues, upon the Kingdome of the Beast, Rev. 15.2, 4, 5, 6.

SECT. V. Of Congregational, Presbyterial, Classical Churches; and of the Church Catholick, and Synods.

P. 25, 26 ‘WEe come now, in the second place, to interpret Antichri­stian Churches, by Episcopal Churches, that are, the greater territories, formed into Diocesan, Provincial, and Oecu­menical Churches, under the several orders of Bishops.’

Episcopacy, of the kind you mention, being now discharged among us, you might have spared your reader, about this mat­ter. Let those that would see, what is said for and against that Government, read the treatises of learned men on that sub­ject. I shall onely, here say to you in general, that cor­ruption in Church-Government is no sufficient cause for sepa­ration from a Church. Wee must not (say you, p. 52.) for re­spect to a right faith, swallow a wrong order. And wee must not, (say I) because of some corruptions in the form of Church-Government, forsake communion with a Church, professing the true faith. Your assertion, in your sense, stands onely up­on your own authority. Mine stands in the very light of the Scripture. The Apostle John, in his third Epistle, mentions a great corruption in Church-Government, but giveth not there­upon, any precept for, or encouragement to separation. There were great corruptions crept into the form of Church-Go­vernment among the Jews, in Christs time; The Lord had ap­pointed, that there should bee onely one High-Priest at a time, and hee was to continue in his office during life; But there were then two High-Priests together, that acted in the function, each his year successively, John 11.47, 49. Besides, the High-Priesthood, was at that time bought for mony, procured by fa­vour at the hands of the Romans. Multitudes of corruptions there were also in the Priests actings, &c. Yet, the Lord Christ gives no command, or intimation to his Disciples, to separate from them, as from a false Church; but onely bids them take heed of being leavened with their corrupt doctrines, and drawn to an imitation of their wicked actions. And the Lord himself held communion with them, as a true Church, in his life time.

‘Jesus Christ hath instituted no other visible, integral, Orga­nical [Page 29] Church, or Church with Officers,P. 26. for the practice of his visible, publick, and solemn worship, but one particular Con­gregation, that may meet together, ordinarily, in the same place, to worship in all the Ordinances of Gods house. Such was the Church at Jerusalem, there were added to it about three thou­sand, Act. 2.41. They grew to five thousand more, Chap. 4.4. yet they were all in Solomons porch, Chap. 5.12. Multitudes were added, Chap. 5.14. yet the Apostles call them together to them, Chap. 6.2, 5. And Chap. 15.4. Paul and Barnabas were received of the Church, that is, all the multitude, verse 12. who were present at the disputation, verse 6, 7.’

Here, indeed, is the Hinge of the Controversies, between us and our Reverend Brethren of the Congregational way, in Old and New-England, who stand to their first professed principles; owning our Congregations as true Churches, but scrupling the Government of them by their Guides united, confining all power of Government, to a single Congregation, and contend­ing that it ought to bee so, with all Gospel-Churches. Had Mr. P. been such a one, I should more gladly have entred the lists with him than I do. But hee hath much out-grown his Brethren in Scruples, and nothing will satisfie him concerning our Churches, but what the Edomites wish'd against Jerusalem, even the rasing of them to the foundation thereof.

For our parts, wee beleeve that Gospel Churches may, and commonly ought to consist of divers single Congregations, united under, and governed by their Elders in common; and that wee have primitive examples for it; and among them, in the first and chief place, that of the Church of Jerusalem in the Apostles times, which is that, that Mr. P. instanceth in, to establish the contrary opinion.

Before I enter upon the dispute, I desire it may bee consi­dered, that the enquiry is not, of what number of members a Church consisted, when it began first to bee planted: But, the inquiry is, how it was with Churches, when arrived to strength and maturity, during the times in which the Apostles lived.

This premised, I begin with the Church of Jerusalem, and say, that the Church of Jerusalem, 1 Of the Church of Je­rusalem. when it grew numerous enough for it, consisted of divers single Congregations, as of so many parts, making up one intire and compleat Church. For proof [Page 30] whereof, let it bee considered, that,

1 There was a Church at Jerusalem, before the addition of the first three thousand, Act. 2.41. And the members of the Church at that time, cannot bee conceived to have been con­teined within the limits of one single Congregation. For the Ministery of Christ was exceeding successeful, Mark. 5.31. John 2.23. John 12.19. It is said of John, Matth. 3.5, 6. Je­rusalem, and all Judea, and all the Region round about Jordan, went out to him, and were baptized of him. And yet, of Christ, it is said, hee made and baptized more disciples than John, John 4.1. Visibly more, so that the Pharisees could take notice of it. Unto these converted by Johns and Christs Ministery, add those brought in by the Ministery of the Apostles, and seventy Disciples, whom Christ endued with a power to work mi­racles, that thereby they might gain faith to their doctrine, Mark. 6. Luk. 10. and yet, still there is great want of labourers, the Harvest was so great, Luk. 10.2. and besides these, more are found (not without Christs approbation) labouring in his Vineyard, impowered also to work miracles, to confirme Christs doctrine which they taught, Mark. 9.38, 39. and of those there seem to have been many, Matth. 7.22. Now, see­ing our Brethren will not grant, that by Baptisme men are ad­mitted into any other, than a particular Church, and there is no mention in Scripture of any other particular Church; till long after this time, but that of Jerusalem onely: Let them from the premises judge, whether the Church of Jerusalem, even before the addition of the first three thousand, must not needs consist of more Congregations than one. But supposing, that as yet there might bee but one Congregation in Jerusalem; yet when wee consider, from the Texts Mr. P. quotes, the ad­dition of the three thousand, and of five thousand more, and af­terwards of multitudes, and adde hereunto, Act. 6.1.7. and 12.24. which speak of the farther prevailing of the Word, and great increase of the number of the Disciples, and together there­with, [...]. reflect on that, Act. 21.20. Thou seest, how many ten thousands of the Jews there are which beleeve: mee thinks, rea­son should compel men to acknowledge, that the Church of Je­rusalem, must needs in the Apostles time, consist of divers single Congregations. What is said against these Texts shall bee anon considered.

[Page 31]2 There was a great number of labourers, in the Church of Jerusalem. There were at first the twelve Apostles, and one hundred and eight Disciples (and most likely 'tis, there were more afterwards) men of rare abilities, and extraordinary in­dowments, all whose labours cannot well be imagined to have been spent in the service of one single Congregation.

3 The time, when there was a full imployment for so many labourers was the first year after Christs Ascention, and 'tis likely 'twas early in that year; for in the second year Paul was convert­ed, whereupon the persecution begun at Stephens death slacked, and the Churches were multiplied, Act. 9.31. Now, many more might bee brought in by the Apostles, during the perse­cution, for they abode at Jerusalem, Act. 8.1. And they con­tinued in Jerusalem divers years after the persecution was end­ed, Act. 15.2. this Council being held about seventeen years after Christs Ascention. Now, that all this while the number of beleevers in Jerusalem, should not bee encreased beyond the bounds of one single Congregation, that might meet ordinari­ly together in the same place, to use the Ordinances of Gods service, and worship, is to mee beyond beleef.

4 At this time there were divers languages spoken in Jeru­salem, by persons dwelling there, Act. 2.5. sixteen several lan­guages are reckoned up, verse 9, 10, 11. Now, many of these persons being converted to the profession of the Christian faith, Reason teacheth us to apprehend, that they were distributed into several Congregations, according to their several languages, to have in them the mysteries of the Gospel preach't unto them, for their edification in the faith of Christ. For which cause, and that some of them might preach unto strange Nations, Christ poured out the gift of tongues on the twelve Apostles, and one hundred and eight Disciples, Act. 1.8.15. with Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4.

These considerations prevaile with mee to conclude, that in Jerusalem there were divers Congregations, under several Teach­ers, and yet all making up but one compleat Church. All these several Congregations, being called in the singular num­ber the Church of Jerusalem. This instance is granted, by the learned Mr. Thomas Hooker, who saith, It doth not appear, that (setting aside the Church of Jerusalem) they (the Christians of one Church) should needs meet in several places. Survey part 1. P. 129. Therein ac­knowledging, [Page 32] that it appeareth the Church of Jerusalem must needs, and did; and I doubt not but others did also.

But, because your self and others much deny this of the Church of Jerusalem, and that if this instance bee made good, the cause is ours, in the point of Presbyterial Churches, consist­ing of divers Congregations; I shall answer the Objections made by you, and others.

Object. 1 The three thousand, Act. 2.41. (say the Reve­rend Authors of the defence of the nine positions, p. 125.) were ad­ded to the one hundred and twenty. They have their communion to­gether described, &c.

Answ. 1 If this one hundred and twenty, were the whole number of Disciples in Jerusalem, gathered into a Church-way at this time, then no account can bee given of those multitudes converted by the Ministery of John, Christ, the Apostles, and se­venty Disciples, how they were disposed of. Neither is it any way probable, that the three thousand should bee added to the Church, before those.

2 Either these were added before the three thousand, or not at all, for ought appears from Scripture.

3 That there were at this time, many more beleevers of the Church of Jerusalem, before the hundred and twenty, is to mee out of doubt. Christ appears to above five hundred Brethren at once, 1 Cor. 15.6. These may be conceived, embodied brethren of the Church of Jerusalem, met together in the exercise of the duties of Gods worship, Luk. 24.33, 36. and a part of those converted by John, Christ, the Apostles, &c. And I am of o­pinion, that Christ, during his forty daies converse with his A­postles, Act. 1.3. speaking of the things pertaining to the King­dome of God, gave them directions for his worship, and the Go­vernment of his Church; and that during that time, and be­tween it and the mission of the holy Ghost, on the day of Pen­tecost, the Apostles did, by Christs direction, cast Christians in­to a certain Gospel-order (which, possibly till now they were not fixt in) for the use of all the Ordinances of Christ, in several societies, under their proper officers; and that these made up the Church of Jerusalem, to which the three thousand were ad­ded, to share in those priviledges, which the rest enjoyed before, which is implied, Act. 2.42.

4 The hundred and twenty were onely the Guides of the [Page 33] Church, their number is made up, of the twelve Apostles, seven­ty Disciples, and thirty eight Persons more, all of Christs reti­nue whilst hee was on earth, Act. 1.15, 21. The Apostles, and seventy Disciples, were, wee read in the Gospel, made Mini­sters by Christ; and the other thirty eight, cannot well bee looked upon as no Ministers. For 1 They conversed, in the same special manner, with Christ, both before, and after his re­surrection, as the Apostles, and seventy Disciples did, Act. 1.21, 22. 2 Any one of the thirty eight was in as neer a capa­city to bee made an Apostle, in the room of Judas, as any of the Seventy; which argueth them to bee men of the same rank, with the Seventy. 3 All the hundred and twenty, were to stay at Jerusalem, waiting for the promise of pouring the Holy Ghost on them, by which they should be en­dued with the gift of strange tongues, Act. 1.4, 5, 13, 14, 15. with Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4. 4 From these last texts, it appeareth, that the whole hundred and twenty, received the gift of tongues, on the day of Pentecost; the end of which was, to preach the Gospel to people of divers languages, now in Jerusalem, and hereafter in other Nations. Therefore all the hundred and twenty were Ministers, and the three thousand were added to the Church of Jerusalem, where they Ministred, and they were the standing Presbytery, the Guides and Governours of that Church, and not any of them of the governed: The multitude of baptized beleevers at Jerusalem, being in all likelihood, ma­ny hundreds, if not some thousands; Else, what account can bee given, of the success of Christs Ministery in Jerusalem, mentioned Joh. 2.23. and 4.1. and 7.31. and 8.30. and 11.28, 45. and 12.19? And, this standing Presbytery of the Church of Jerusalem, is the basis of the discourse of the Evan­gelist, concerning the Church, in this book of the Acts, unto which, many passages in it, do particularly relate; which by many, and Mr. P. are thought to relate to the whole Church of Jerusalem, as shall bee made to appear.

Object. 2 All that beleeved were together, Act. 2.44. con­tinuing daily with one accord in the Temple, verse 46. Therefore they were but one single Congregation.

Answ. Together, [...], relates not to the place of their assembling, but to their oneness, in heart, spirit, and practice. The phrase is often used by the Septuagint, in this sense, to note [Page 34] mens concurrence, in the same actions, though distant in place, Psal. 2.2. [...] [...]ariter. The Kings of the earth assembled themselves toge­ther, [...]. So Psalm 49.2. Give ear all yee inhabitants of the world, both high and low, rich and poor together, [...]. Where tis plain, that, together, relates not to the place of their assembling (for what place can contain the whole world as an auditory?) but to their concurring in attention, to the Prophets doctrin when declared to them. Therefore these beleevers being [...], will not infer, that there was but one Congrega­tion of them, but, that they were one in heart, spirit and pra­ctice. Neither can that other place bee usefull, in the service for which 'tis prest, that, they continued with one accord, in the Temple. That same [...], confirms what hath been said to the other place, and is exegetical to it. And for their continuing daily in the Temple, It teacheth us, that as yet, they had not cast off all the worship of the Temple, but resorted thi­ther at the houres of Prayer, Act. 3.1. as before; holding cor­respondency with the Church of the Jews so far as they might; But it doth not hold out, that the Temple was their meeting place (as our Reverend Brethren suppose) either for the feed­ing Disciples with the Word, Defence of the nine positions. p. 125. or the administring of Sacra­ments to them, for neither of these would have been indured there, Act. 4.1, 2.

p. 26.Obj. 3 "They were all with one accord in Solomons porch, Act. 5.12.

Answ. 1 The Text speaks not of the multitude of Beleev­ers, but of the Apostles, by whose hands miracles were wrought, as appears clearly by what precedes and follows the parenthesis, in the 12. and 15. vers. So that the mistake is palpable, in in­terpreting this of the multitude. The Text distinguisheth clearly, between the Apostles and the Church, vers. 10, 11, 12.

2 Were it granted, that all the multitude of beleevers was there; It follows not, (neither can it ever bee proved) that they convened there, to partake of the Ordinances of Christ, as administered by the Apostles; Or that, the Apostles did there Administer them to them. The work of the Apostles (as Mi­nisters) in the Temple, is still found to relate to the unconver­ted; And no one place can bee produced, that proves, that they there fed the converted.

p. 26.Object. 4 ‘Act. 6.2, 3. The twelve, called the multitude of the Disciples unto them, and said, Brethren, look yee out a­mong [Page 35] you seven men, &c. Therefore at this time, the Church did all meet in the same place, and consequently were but one single Congregation.’

Ans. 1 It may bee questioned, whether this multitude mean the whole number of Beleevers, or onely the multitude of the Presbytery, called to choose from among themselves seven men. Authors of good note there are for the latter.

2 Supposing the choice of Deacons to bee permitted to the whole Church of Jerusalem, this will not help our brethrens cause. 1 Because it cannot bee proved, neither is it likely, that all the Members of the Church, both men and women, did meet upon this occasion; But that of the men, as many met as would and could, as is usual in publike conventions, as in the choice of Parliament men, &c. 2 If every individual mem­ber met, yet who knows not, that many more may come to­gether in the same place, who by lifting up of hands, or some other signal, may give testimony of their choice of persons, than can meet together in the same place to hear the word preached, and, in an ordinary way, to partake of all Ordinan­ces. The whole multitude might on such an occasion come together, and yet for the orderly use of all Ordinances, meet u­sually in several Assemblies.

Object. 5 ‘Act. 15.4, 6, 7, 12. Paul and Barnabas, p. 27. were received of the Church, by which Calvin understands, plebem ipsam, & totum corpus. All the multitude of the Church were present at the disputation, for they gave audience to Paul and Barnabas, and concurred with the Apostles and Elders, imme­diately upon the conclusion of James his speech, v. 22.’

Answ. 1 What Calvin says, will not serve your turn.Peculiarem lo­cum assignat Apostolis, & Presbyteris, a quibus praeser­tim excepti fuerunt. You might have seen, by what hee subjoyns, his meaning to be that they were received by the Apostles and Elders, and some chief ones of the Members of the Church, in the name of the whole. Thus, the act of the Lord Maior, Aldermen, and Common Council, is re­puted the Act of the whole City. So also is the third vers. ex­pounded by Calvin, and so to bee understood;Communi Ec­clesiae nomine, adjuncti fue­runt comites. of the Church of Antioch, for who can think, that the whole body of the Church brought them on their way?

2 The Multitude that kept silence, and gave audience to Paul and Barnabas, was the multitude of the Elders with the Apostles, met to decide the Question, about which the Church of Anti­och [Page 36] was troubled: For vers. 6. mentions no others, The Apo­stles and Elders came together to consider of this matter; and to them were Paul and Barnabas delegated, ver. 2. and they onely speak in the judging and deciding of this question (for such power doth not belong to common members, as shall be pro­ved) therefore they were the multitude, that gave audience to Paul and Barnabas.

In vers. 6.3 There is not ground to conclude, that the whole Church was present at that disputation. Non dicit Lucas (saith Cal­vin) totam Ecclesiam congregatam, sed eos qui doctrina, & ju­dicio pollebant, & qui ratione officii, hujus causae legitimi erant judices. Your Reason brought to prove that 'tis very plain, that the whole multitude of the Church was present, because the whole Church is said to concur with the Apostles and El­ders, in chusing brethren, and sending letters, seems to mee very obscure, and not at all cogent. For though the Apostles and Elders concluded then to write Letters and send Messen­gers, yet it follows not, that the thing was immediately done; Nor that the Church was then present to consent to the doing of it. There is no necessity that [...], should signify immediately upon the conclusion of James his speech, no more than that, so when they were dismissed, which follows the end of the letter, should mean that the messengers were sent away towards An­tioch that night. That which the Apostles and Elders determined then, might bee afterwards put in execution, with the concur­rence of the Church, had in due time and place by way of con­sent. Or, if the Letters were then drawn up, and the consent of the whole Church was then given to it, and to the sending of the chosen Messengers (which cannot bee firmly proved) yet, there is no necessity of understanding by the whole Church here, all the members of the Church of Jerusalem, but some chief ones of it that might bee there in the name of the whole Church, whose consent was, on that account, the consent of the whole Church. The presence and explicit consent of e­very individual member of the Church, appeareth not to have been required, necessary or probable.

Nothing therefore can hence bee concluded, to prove the Church of Jerusalem one single congregation, or to disprove its consisting of many particular congregations, which hath been before evinced.

Object. 6 ‘And whereas the Apostle speakes of many myriads of Jews that beleeved, Act. 21.20. p. 27. It is not to be restrained to Jews dwelling at Jerusalem, seeing it was the time of Pentecost, when Jews and Proselytes came to Jerusalem out of all Nations, and wee have expresse mention of the Jews that were of Asia, ver. 27.’

Ans. Those myriads appear to bee the very same multitude, spoken of vers. 22. that must needs come together; the reading of the context evinceth it. Now page 28. you say, ‘It doth not seem congruous, that this should bee said of any other, but the Church of Jerusalem; what other multitude should the Apo­stles expect to come together?’ So that if I prove my assertion, your own words will confute you. But that those myriads spoken of, were all members of the Christian Church of Jerusa­lem, appears. For,

1 Paul being come to Jerusalem, giveth an account to James and the Elders, of the successe of his Ministery a­mong the Gentiles, vers. 18, 19. And they on the other side, give Paul an account of the hand of God with their Ministery at Je­rusalem, vers. 20. Therefore to thrust in the Jews of Asia, and other parts, is quite besides the purpose.

2 The Jews are such as it seems Paul had no account of till now, though hee were the Apostle of the Gentiles, and had laboured among them many years, and so had cause to know of them better than any other Apostle. Therefore they were Jews of Jerusalem.

3 These Jews had the charge against Paul onely by infor­mation from others, vers. 21. which Argues that they did not live among the Gentiles, for then they would have had perso­nal knowledge of his carriage.

4. These Jews are supposed by the Apostles to bee satisfiable by Pauls present conformity, vers. 22, 23, 24. But Jews dis­perst among the Gentiles, that had heard Paul, and seen and known neerly his practice, would not have been thus satisfied.

5 The Jews of Asia could bee none of the number of these myriads of Jews, for by the matter of their declaiming against the Apostle, they manifest that they had not imbraced the Gos­pel. But the Myriads of Jews spoken of are said to be beleeving.

Therefore I conclude these Myriads of Jews did belong to the Church of Jerusalem, and did dwell in or about Jerusalem, and therefore the Church of Jerusalem must needs consist of [Page 38] many Congregations, this objection notwithstanding.

p. 27.But you help out the matter, as well as you can, saying, ‘Nei­ther is it impossible for Myriads (in the Language of Luke at least) to come together, and to hear at once the same Preacher, to shew which Mr. Norton urgeth Luk. 21.1.’

I Answer, 1 Mr. Norton speaks not of Myriads in Lukes language (which is your weak conceit, as if Myriads in Lukes language, were less than in the common acceptation) neither doth hee urge, but meerly alledge that Text. 2 Though by that place it appear, that Myriads flocked after Christ, yet it proveth not that they all did, or could actually hear him, at the same time. Wee know commonly, that in a great concourse of people, in an open place, there are many, that can neither see, nor hear, what they came to observe. And Christ is said there, to speak to his Disciples, and not to the whole multitude. 3 A Myriad, never consisting of more or less than ten thou­sand, Many Myriads could not possibly meet in the same place, at the same time, to hear the word, much less orderly to partake of all Ordinances, and carry on (according to your sense especially) Church-work.

There being then, many ten thousands, in the Church of Jeru­salem, it must needs consist of divers Congregations, this Ar­gumenticle, notwithstanding. And so much for the Church of Jerusalem.

P. 28.You proceed to say. ‘Wee may add to this instance, that of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14.23. and Antioch, Act. 15.30. But I finde no contrary instances.’

Either you mean (if the meaning of your words may bee found) that Jerusalem onely, is pressed by us, as an example of a Church consisting of many Congregations; Or, that the Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, and Antioch, are the onely Churches, that we plead consisted of divers Congregations. Both which assertions are void of truth. For, not onely Jerusalem, Corinth, and Antioch, but also Rome, Thessalonica, Philippi, and the seven Churches of Asia, are all asserted by us, to have been Presbyterial Churches, consisting of divers Congregations, and that upon strong, and to us perswading grounds. A reve­rend Brother addes,Hudson. It seemeth difficult to finde in the New Testa­ment an expresse instance, or example, of a Congregational Church, standing and continuing so, by it self. The Church of Cenchrea, [Page 39] Rom. 16.1. is the likeliest, yet it is not certain, for it was a Port-Town of the Corinthians, Dr. Owen, of Schism. p. 36, 37. but eight miles distant from Co­rinth. And, a learned Congregational man, supposeth the Church of Cenchrea, to bee included in that of Corinth.

Come wee therefore now to speak particularly to some more instances.

The Church of Corinth was a Presbyterial Church,2 Of the Church of Co­rinth. made up of divers Congregations. For proof whereof, consider,

1 The eminency of the place. Corinth was the famous Me­tropolis of Achaia. Lumen Graeciae, saith Tully; [...], saith Thucidides in Eustathius. It mastered one half of Greece. Now, that in this famous City, the number of Christians should bee no greater,Vide Pisc. in 1 Cor. 14.23 than what might ordinarily meet in some one private house (for they had in primitive times no large Temples to meet in) seems no way credible.

2 God tells Paul in a vision, Act. 18.10. that hee had much people in this City, to wit, to bee added to those already convert­ed, and brought into Church-order, vers. 8. And they were much people, 1 In reference to the number of the Jews there, that rejected Christ, and had a Synagogue, verse 4, 6. for this is brought in, as a stay to Pauls spirit in that case, to assure him that hee should have an abundant seal of his Ministery, though many opposed it. 2 In reference to the City it self, a great number of those in it. Therefore they must bee more than could meet in one house, else they had been but a very small handful to the City.

3 Paul stayeth at Corinth a year and six months, Act. 18.11. Now, it being the work of an Apostle to plant Churches, and leave them to others to water, this makes it probable, that there were there divers Congregations, for the setling of which,Of Schism. p. 37, 38. Paul stayeth so long. And besides this, The Christians of all Achaia (saith Dr. Owen) did belong to the Church of Corinth, and assem­bled therewith as they could, for the participation of Ordinances, and the Church of Cenchrea cometh under the same name with that of Corinth. Put this together. The beleevers in Corinth, in Cenchrea, and in all Achaia besides, are accounted members of the Church of Corinth by the learned Doctor (to whom I sup­pose Mr. P. will subscribe) and then, who sees not, that there must needs have been many Congregations belonging to the Church of Corinth?

[Page 40]4 There was a great number of Teachers in that Church, that speech, 1 Cor. 4.15. clearly implies it; and this argues, that there were several Congregations for so great a number of Teachers to attend upon.

5 The Apostle speaketh expresly of divers Congregations be­longing to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your Wo­men, [...], keep silence in the Churches; Therefore, there were Churches, several Congregations, to which the women of the Church of Corinth did belong,

Against this there are chiefly two Objections.

Object. 1 1 Cor. 14.23. If the whole Church bee come to­gether, and all speak with tongues, &c. Therefore they were but one single Congregation.

Answ. 1 The Greek is, [...], and may well bee ren­dred, about the same thing, or for the same end and purpose; n. to partake of Gods Ordinances. Diodate saith, to verse 31. yee may all prophesie, &c. namely, by course, and in divers or several Assemblies. So saith Estius, The Prophets were to prophesie in di­vers Assemblies, and therefore it is said, Let your Women keep si­lence in the Churches.

2 I suppose none will say, that all the members of the Church of Corinth, did speak with tongues, for then, what need of an In­terpreter, and yet the Church here spoken of did so.

3 Therefore here is a clear pattern, of a Representative Church; The Prophets, as distinguished from the rest of the members, are called the Church.

4 Here is a clear pattern of Prophets, in combination with, and subjection to their fellow Prophets. Let the Prophets speak, two, or three, and let the other judge, verse 29.

Obj. 2 1 Cor. 5.4, 5. When you are gathered together, to deliver such a one to Satan. Therefore they were but one Congregation.

Answ. 1 The Text speaks not of the gathering together of all the members of the Church of Corinth, but of the meeting of the Church-Officers, to excommunicate the incestuous person. Authoritative binding, acts of rule and government, belonging onely to Church-Officers, as is granted by the most mode­rate and learned of the Congregational Brethren. The Key of Authority and Rule (saith Mr. Cotton) is committed to the El­ders of the Church, Keyes, p. 20. & alibi. and so, the Act of Rule, is made the proper act of their Office. Christ gave the power of binding and loosing to [Page 41] all the Apostles, and the Apostles committed it to the Elders. The power of the people, is a power of liberty, to joyn with the Presbyte­ry, in casting out, or cutting off; But authoritative power they have not. Temple mea­sured, p. 35 And (saies Mr. Noys) A necessity of members con­sent, doth constitute a Church excessively Democratical, and ren­ders the Elders onely titular Governours. Hence it appears, there was no need of the presence of all the members of the Church of Corinth, to excommunicate the incestuous person.

2 The persons, that met for this work, were to meet with Pauls pastoral spirit; this suits the Church-Officers, not the people.

3 Paul chargeth it upon the ordinary members, as their sin, that they mourned not for that sin, [...]. and for their Elders neglect of discipline, using the passive voice, not the active, (as Mr. Ru­therford observes) whereby it appears, that the members were patients, rather than agents. That some of the ordinary mem­bers were present, at the excommunication, may bee granted; But, that all the members of the Church of Corinth, were present, or bound so to bee, cannot bee proved; Nothing therefore is hence gained.

The Church of Antioch also appeareth to have consisted of divers Congregations; 2 The Church of Antioch. because of the multitude of labourers there. Divers of the Teachers of Jerusalem come to Antioch, being driven away by the persecution, and the hand of the Lord was with them, in bringing in Gentiles, to joyn with the be­leeving Jews, Act. 11.19, 20, 21. They soon want more la­bourers, Barnabas is sent to assist in the work, verse 22. hee findes the work so great, that hee fetcheth over Saul, to assist him, verse 25. Barnabas and Paul, stay at Antioch a whole year, teach much people, and here Disciples are first called Christians, verse 26, and returning, they abode there a long time, chap. 14.28. What more likely, than that there were divers Congre­gations belonging to that Church, since it needed so many Teachers, and kept there so long, men so eminent, Planters of Churches?

Object. Act. 14.27. When they had gathered the Church together, Act. 15.30. the mu [...]titude together, Act. 11.26. they assembled themselves with the Church.

Answ. The first Text may well bee understood of the Re­presentative Church, to wit, the Elders, by whom the multitude [Page 42] might at their set times of meeting, for the use of publick Ordi­nances, be informed. And if wee should understand it of the whole Church, the Text puts no necessity upon us, of under­standing it, of their being all gathered into one and the same place. They might bee gathered into their several meeting-places, and there bee informed of the successe of the Messengers, by several of them. The two other Texts may also bee so understood. The multitude might bee gathered and informed of the Epistle in their several meeting-places; and Paul and Barnabas, and the other Teachers, might assemble with the Church in several meeting-places, some in some, and some in others. From these Texts therefore nothing can be concluded, to prove Antioch's a congregational Church.

4 The Church of Rome.The Church of Rome, likewise, appears to have been Presbyte­rial. There was one congregation meeting in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16.3, 5. and two others meeting in other places, vers. 14, 15. and there is ground to conclude, that there were yet more Congregations belonging to that Church. 1 Because Paul saluteth several in this Chapter, that seem to have been Teachers in that Church, vers. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 2 The Faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. 1. which argueth them to have been a numerous Church. 3 Their continuing sound in the faith for many years together, when other famous Chur­ches mouldered away, argues the same.

Wee might also instance in the Churches of the Colossians, Thessalonians, Philippians; But I shall, for a conclusion, mention the Churches of Asia.

5 The seven Churches of Asia.The seven Churches of Asia, spoken of Rev. 2. & 3. chap. were Presbyterial Churches, consisting of divers Congregations, which appears; because,

1 The Cities in the which they were planted were great Ci­ties. Ephesus was the head of Ionia, the greatest market of all Asia, famous among the Heathen for the Temple of Diana; and there the Apostle Paul spent his labours for three years to­gether, Act. 20.31. Laodicea was one of the greatest Cities in all Phrygia, famous for traffick. The rest were also famous Ci­ties, and of great command. Therefore 'tis not probable that there was but one single Congregation of Christians in each.

2 There was a great number of Teachers in each of these [Page 43] Churches. To the Angel of the Church, write, so begins every E­pistle. Now 'tis apparent from several places in these Epistles, that there was more than one Minister in each Church; and there­fore this Angel must mean, either a Colledge of Pastors in each Church, or a President over that ruling society, as the leading man in all acts of publike concernment and Church-govern­ment. The former seems most probable, and is proved by Smectymunus, from Rev. 2.24. But unto you, I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, [...] &c. where the Angel is bespoken in the Plu­ral number, as distinct from the members. In Ephesus alone in Pauls time, the Elders appear to have been so many, as were more than needed for one single congregation, Act. 20.25, 36, 37. Yee all shall see my face no more, Hee prayed with them all, They all wept sore; these three alls imply that they were very many. And the Church is called all the flock, vers. 28. [...]. which argues that there were several charges for them to attend up­on. So in Pergamos there were divers Pastors, for there were divers erroneous teachers three, some teaching the doctrine of Balaam, Rev. 2.14. Some that of the Nicholaitans, vers. 15. (and what more likely than that they did it in several Congre­gations?) and others holding fast Christs name, who were so many, that they are required to purge out those erroneous ones. Therefore 'tis not probable that they were all over one single congregation onely. The like may bee said of the rest of those Churches, that are exhorted to deal in a disciplinary way with false teachers. There were very many Pastors in them, and consequently several Congregations on which they attended.

3 The Holy Ghost hints clearly that these Churches were Presbyterial, consisting of divers Congregations, when hee calleth each of them, first a Church, and then Churches, Rev. 2.1, 7. & 8.11. & 12.17. & 18.29. So Rev. 3. Each of these bodies is called Churches, as it was made up of divers congregations un­der their proper Pastors, and yet but one Church, as these con­gregations were combined, and subjected together to the go­vernment of all the Elders in common.

These two Chapters well weighed, would put an end to divers controversies among us, about the Discipline of the Church. For, 1 Hence Christians might bee convinced, that Church-power was never committed to the people, but to [Page 44] Church-officers only. The Angels only are censured for neg­lect, and ill administration of Government in the Churches; and praised for, and exhorted to the due exercise of Disci­pline. 2 Hence a combination of the Officers of divers con­gregations, united to govern them in common may bee e­vinced. The Elders in Pergamos sound in the faith, must in a disciplinary way hinder the Balaamites and Nicholaitans, from teaching their errors in the assemblies of Christians there. 3 Hence appears that the spirit of the Prophets is not subject to the people, but to the Prophets onely. The Angel of each Church, the Church-officers, must try the Prophets, and those that say they are Apostles, Rev. 2.2.

Let us now consider, how Mr. P. proceeds.

‘p. 29, 30, 31, 32Classical Churches are put in the room of Episcopal Churches, by the effectual working of the mystery of iniquity. These are combinations of congregations, united by subjection to one and the same Court of Elders, chosen out of the whole to govern them. These are pressed so far, as to take away power of govern­ment, and exercise of Ecclesiastical Discipline from the Congre­gations. For they appropriate power of Government to the Elder­ship. This agrees not with the institution, Matth. 18.18. When Christ saies, whatsoever yee binde on earth, &c. doth hee not include the offending brother? Christ promised the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven unto Peter, as unto a lively confessour of him, and did not therein look on him otherwise.’

I have already given in reasons to manifest Gospel Chur­ches in Primitive times, to have been Classical; and more shall bee said to it upon your next paragraph. The first branch of your charge against those that are for them, I shall now con­sider; which is, that they appropriate the power of Government, and exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline, to the Eldership. A sad crime beleeve it! and as much to bee condemned as the appro­priating of power of government in the Commonwealth to the Magistrate; which by some passages in Mr. P's Book, seems to bee in his judgement a crime too. If the people can lay claim from Christs appointment to the power of the Keyes; as, to the Preaching of the Word, administration of the Sacra­ments, authoritative binding and loosing (for the Keyes go to­gether, and were given to Peter together) if these things belong to the Community in the Church; wee shall confess our selves [Page 45] guilty, in appropriating the power of government to the El­dership. But though wee have looked much after it, wee can­not discern any such grant and appointment of our Lord Christ the King of the Church. And when I read such places as these, Matth. 18.18. & 28.19, 20. John 20.22, 23. & 21.16. Eph. 4.11, 12. I cannot without offering violence to my rea­son, imagine that they speak to and of the Community; con­sidering withall, what express charges the Community have upon them from God, to bee subject to those that are over them in the Lord, as to their Governours, Teachers, Pastors, Rulers, &c.

But I will particularly consider, the first of these Texts, which is that, Mr. P. urgeth for his cause, and shew how little it makes for it.

That Mat. 18.17, 18. speaks of the Church-Officers onely, doth appear, because it is spoken by Christ, with reference firstly, to the Jewish Church-governours, than which there was then no other governing Church in being. And this is the joint judgement of the Antients, Ambrose, Cyril, Theodoret, Gregory, &c. and of multitudes of later lights in the Church, Melanchton, Areti­us, Musculus, Bucan, Cartwright, Parker, &c. and Mr. Fenner gives a reason of it from the words our Saviour useth, viz. Pub­lican, Heathen, and that otherwise the Apostles could not have understood Christ, knowing then no other Church govern­ing. So that, the Lord Christ manifestly alludes to the Jew­ish, and gives from it a pattern to the Christian Church. First, the offending brother must bee dealt with, in a private way; If this prevail not, one or two witnesses are to bee taken, the next time admonition is given; If this work not on him, then the Church is to bee told of it, that is, the Elders of the Church, before whom among the Jews, Ecclesiastical causes were brought (first the Elders of that particular congregation, then (if need bee) the associated Elders of combined Congregations, for so among the Jews the Rulers of the Synagogue were first compl [...]ined to, and then the great Ecclesiastical Court, which was the Church representative) and if the offendor will not hear them, hee must bee excommunicated, and accounted as a Heathen and a Publican. And hee that is thus bound on earth, if the thing bee duly done, is bound in heaven. Hence it appears, that the Communities sharing in the power and act of [Page 46] binding, cannot any way bee hence gathered, without offering a manifest violence to the Text; which Mr. P. doth to pur­pose, and withall to all rules, both of divine and humane Poli­ty, when hee makes not onely the community judges and Governours, but even the offending brother, a judge in his own cause.

Let us now, draw an Argument from this Text, to relieve Classes against his fierce assault. If in this place, our Saviour layes down a rule, for the healing of all the grievances of his Church; then, by the Church here to bee complained to, wee must understand, not onely the Church governing of one Con­gregation, but also the Church governing of many Congrega­tions: But in this place, Christ laies down a rule for the heal­ing of all the grievances of his Church; therefore, wee must by the Church here understand, the Church governing, even of ma­ny Congregations, or the united Elders of several Congregati­ons and Churches. The minor is clear, because this is the one­ly express Text, wherein Christ did lay down a rule to his dis­ciples, for the healing of offences in his Church; and I suppose none will say, that Christs remedy, is too short to reach the malady. The consequence of the major is made out thus. Not onely one Brother may offend another, but the Elders one ano­ther, one part of the Congregation the other, the Congregation the Elders, the Elders the Congregation, and one or more Churches, one or many Sister Churches. Our sad experience proves this to bee a truth, and it is also proved by Scripture-ex­amples. Now, how shall such evils bee healed, but by an ap­peal, and application to a representative Church, a Church go­verning so comprehensive, as the case will require? If a Church so comprehensive, be not here meant, then Christian Churches, are in such cases, left without remedy; but that being not to bee granted, it will follow, that the Church governing here spoken of, takes into its meaning, an assembly or Church of Officers of many Congregations.

Leaving Mr. P. to consider this Argument, I return to the point, the holding of which hee chargeth upon us, as a crime, that the power of the Keyes belongs onely to the Eldership. For which, I shall cite the suffrages of Congregational Brethren themselves. The Key of authority and rule (saith Mr. Cotton) is committed to the Elders of the Church, Keyes p. 20. and so, the act of rule is [Page 47] made the proper act of their office. Common members (saith Mr. Noyes) are not to govern by suffrage with their Elders, Temple mea­sured, p. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36 their con­sent is not absolutely necessary, and is not authoritative. The Mi­nisterial Keyes were given to Peter, as an Apostle, Peter is made, Matth. 16.18, 19. oeconomus Ecclesiae, and is evidently di­stinguished from the Church; (which Mr. P. denies, and in saying, that Christ in this speech, looked on him no otherwise, than as a lively confessor of him, hee puts into every beleevers hands, the power of the Keys, for if, I give unto thee, respect Peter onely as a lively confessor of Christ, it extends to every lively confessor of Christ, and so every true Beleever is vested with power to preach, administer the Sacraments, and binde and loose authorita­tively; than which, what is more absurd?) Again, the Elders, are Rulers, Governours, have power to command, as superiours in authority judicial. The Church is charged to obey them, not to command, to bee subject, not to govern. The Angels are rebuked, for the corruptions of the Churches of Asia, as if it had been in their power to prevent, and redress things amiss. Governours, and to govern with coactive power, are conjugates. Are they not proper Governours, which shall govern the people, over which they are Governours, onely when themselves list? Keyes p. 47. In case (saith Mr. Cot­ton) a Church be troubled with errour, or scandal, and the same maintained by a faction among them; now a Synod of Churches, or their messengers, is the first subject of that power and authority, whereby errour is judicially convinced, and condemned, the truth searched out and determined, and the way of truth and peace de­clared and imposed on all Churches. Quid plura? Do not our Brethren grant what wee say, though in some places, they make exceptions from their own grants, in favour of the Com­munity? But one Objection is to bee removed.

Object. Neither Matthew 18. nor any other place, is to bee understood of a governing Church, or a Presbytery, because such a company is never called a Church in Scripture.

Mr. Noyes answereth, [...] is used for any assembly, in the New Testament, Act. 19.39. and therefore is applicable to an assembly of Elders, and the Presbytery is called the Congregation, or Church, in the Old Testament, Numb. 35.24, 25. with Deut. 19.12. and our Saviour may well be supposed to conform his speech to the Old Testament. Wee have shewed, that 1 Cor. 14.23. calls clearly the Teachers, the Church, neither can Church bee other­wise [Page 48] understood, in Matth. 18. but of a Presbytery or governing Church, since the power of binding and loosing is ascribed to it, which is no where granted to the Community, as hath been said. Let us now heed Mr. P's second assault or charge.

‘Secondly, They exclude the single Congregations, considered severally, each one by it self, from having an Eldership, having power to exercise Ecclesiastick Discipline.P. 32, 33, 34. But is it likely, that, go tell the Church, should mean, go tell the Elders of the combi­nation? It hath been proved, that the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth were single Congregations, and that of Corinth exerci­sed ecclesiastick discipline. But they stay not here, but translate the power of Government to their Elderships, subordinate one to a­nother, till they come to an oecumenical assembly. Now, if wee grant, that single Congregations with their Elderships, be exclu­ded from the power of Government, yet will it not appear from Scripture, that there are any higher Elderships, or larger com­binations of Churches, than those of the first form, and first step from the single Congregations. The Churches of Asia, grant them collective Churches, do severally receive of Christ, the praise of their good, and blame of their evil carriage, &c.’

Here, in some things you apprehend not our mind rightly, and in others, you overthrow your cause.

1 Wee hold, that the power of Government residing in the Eldership; a particular Congregation may, and ought to have an appropriate Eldership belonging to it.

2 That a single Congregation having an appropriate Elder­ship, is a true Church.

3 That such single Congregations, have equal power, seve­rally considered.

4 That though a single Congregation, bee a Church; yet, it is, or ought to bee also, when it may, a part or member of a Presbyterial Church; and hath not so much power, as a Clas­sical Church hath.

5 That the Presbytery of a single Congregation, have power to end differences among themselves, in cases that are ordi­nary.

6 That in cases weighty and extraordinary, as excommunica­tion, The Presbytery or Eldership of consociated Congregations, are concerned, as well as the Presbytery of that single Congre­gation, of which the offending Brother is. Paul writeth not to the [Page 49] Eldership of that particular Congregation, of which the incestu­ous person was more peculiarly a member, but to the Presby­tery of all the Congregations belonging to the Church of Co­rinth, to cast him out.

7 That there is no example, in all the New Testament, of excommunication, by the particular Eldership of one single Con­gregation.

8 That therefore a single Congregation, ordinarily, is not a compleat, entire Church, furnished with full power, for all acts of Church-discipline.

9 That wee finde in the New Testament, Church-Discipline commonly executed, in a Presbyterial Church, consisting of di­vers Congregations. Such was the Church of Ephesus, and the Eldership of this Church, as such, did commonly exercise Church-Discipline, tryed false Prophets, and those that called themselves Apostles, and convicted them as lyars, Rev. 2. The like wee might say of other Churches.

10 That in extraordinary cases, wee have an example of ap­peal, from one Presbyterial Church, to an association of such Churches to guide us. The Church of Antioch (and probably also those of Syria and Silicia, Act. 15.23.) appeals, to an as­sembly of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, and the Elders of that Church united; (probably also of the Elders of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia) and the controversie, which could not bee ended otherwise, is ended in and by that Synod.

And thus, larger Synods and Councils may bee necessary, even an Oecumenical, to heal publick and spreading evils. If the Church (saith Mr. Cotton) where the offence lyeth, Way. p. 108 persisteth in the neglect of their duty, and the counsel of their Brethren; the mat­ter would be referred, to a Congregation of many, or all the Churches together. That is, sure, to the Elders of all the Churches, for to them hee saies, the power of rule, or Government, doth properly belong.

Hence, you may rectifie your mistakes; wee exclude not the Eldership of a single Congregation, from power of Govern­ment, but say, it hath not ordinarily power for all acts of Church-Discipline. And, in that wee arise from a Congregational, to a Classical, Synodal, and Oecumenical Eldership, wee have respect to the need of the Church so requiring it, and to the precedents given us of the two first, in Scripture; which are also a sufficient ground for the latter.

What you say of Jerusalem and Corinth, helps you not, for it hath been evinced, that they were not single Congregations.

What you adde, against higher Elderships, or larger combina­tions of Churches than those of the first step from single Congrega­tions, from the consideration of the Churches of Asia, doth you no service, but è contra. For,

1 By granting the Churches of Asia to have been collective Churches, you pull down what you had said, for the con­gregationalness of Churches. Grant them collective Churches, and the greatest part of your book is una litura.

2 By saying, that it appears not from Scripture, that there are any larger combinations of Churches, than those of this first form; You look beside the Scripture, and the state of the Question. The state of the question; because wee stand not for stated and fixed combinations of Churches, beyond that first form, but onely occasional ones; and the Scripture, because as hath been, and shall bee shewed, there was a higher Eldership, and larger com­bination of Churches in the Synod at Jerusalem, than those of the first step from single congregations: the Elders of the Pres­byterial Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, being there com­bined, and in all probability, those also of Syria and Cilicia, as hath been said.

3 If you will stand to what you say, that the Churches of Asia, do severally receive praise or dispraise, each for her self, without reflection on the rest; I will compel you to grant posi­tively (and not onely suppositively) that they were collective Churches. For the Epistle to every one hath this close, Hee that hath an ear let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Chur­ches. If what Christ saies to one Church, hee says to the Churches, and yet the several Churches do each for her self, restrainedly receive praise or dispraise; It follows unavoidably, that every one of the seven Churches, was a collective Church, and so you dispute against, and confute your self.

4 'Tis not strange, as you say it is, that Christ should not speak of a combination of these seven Churches, as an Ordinance of his, for their remedie; and blame them for the neglect of it. For they were first to use, and Christ directs them accordingly to the use of, the first means, the help of the Presbytery of each Church. If this would do, there was no need of carrying the cause higher; if upon tryal it would not do, they knew what [Page 51] course was next to bee used, and had an example of it in the practice of the Church of Antioch.

To your question, Whether it bee likely, that, go tell the Church, should mean, go tell the Elders of the combination; I an­swer, it is likely, and it hath been proved to mean so; yet not firstly, as you seem to insinuate that wee hold, but secondarily, when the Eldership of the particular Church, where the of­fence is given, prevail not to remove it.

‘Here was no Synod, Act. 15. that is, an assembly of Officers, resulting out of many inferiour Presbyteries.P. 35. 10 p. 45 1 Because we read not of any such combination of the Churches there mentioned, to become subject to the rule of one Superior Eldership. 2 Because wee read of no forreigners, that came to this Synod, but those of Antioch, who concurred not in the Decrees of it, and are ex­cluded from the decision of the controversy, Act. 16.4. 3 Here was no appeal from the censure of the Church at Antioch, there passed no censure, but onely had been a dissention, and disputa­tion; and so the errand of the Messengers was to get satisfaction, that the same doctrin was taught at Jerusalem as at Antioch. 4 Here was no rule exercised over the Churches, for it would argue a diminution of Pauls Apostolical Authority, that the Decrees of the Apostles should more than materially bind him. And these Decrees are made by a joynt act of the Apostles, El­ders and Brethren (difference in the order of their concurrence we grant, but in the nature of the Act wee cannot grant) but it will not bee granted that the Brethren did exercise an Act of Rule over other Churches. To say, that by the whole Church is meant the Synodical Church, is without ground, being built on the im­possibility of the meeting of the Church of Jerusalem in one place, which hath been refuted. And if the Brethren were shut out from a concurrence of the same nature with the Elders, will they say, that the Elders of a Classical Presbytery at Jerusalem, did exer­cise rule over all these Churches so far distant, that could not be of their combination? If vers. 28. of laying a burden bee object­ed; Let it bee considered whether there be not as much said of the assertion of the Pharisees, ver. 5, & 10.’

‘Thus, if wee should grant Classical Eldership, it will bee hard to grant any more with Scripture warrant. But wee shall not grant these, having proved the most numerous Churches to have been Congregational, and called severally by the name of Church [Page 52] in the singular, and the numerous Church of Corinth was not onely Congregational, but had and exercised the power of the Keyes. Paul, wraps up Elders and people together, in the exer­cise of discipline, with a concurrence of the like nature. And thus, the whole fabrick of the Classical way falls to the ground.’

Mr. P. (as one observes) is a man of growing scruples, and hath much out-stript in them, the Reverend New-England Congregational Brethren;Keys chap. 6. and that in weighty points, rejecting Ruling-Elders, &c. and here Synods. Mr. Cotton tells him, that Synods are an Ordinance of Christ, grounding himself on Act. 15. saying, 'Tis a precedent for succeeding Ages. And that, they have power by the grace of Christ, to command and in­joyn the things to bee beleeved and done; for which hee cites the express words of the Synodal letter, vers. 28. And that this power to binde burdens, ariseth not onely materially from the weight of the things imposed, but formally from the authority of the Synod, as an Ordinance of Christ. Adding, that the fraternity have onely a power of liberty, not of authority, for which hee quotes Act. 16.4. And excepts from the power of a Synod, onely the in­joyning of things in their use indifferent, not denying them power of Ordination and Excommunication.

But Mr. P. is an Independent of an higher form, Let us consi­der what he saith.

1 His first reason against the Synodicalness of this Assembly, that wee Read not of a combination of Churches, is untrue, For, the deputed Elders of the Church of Antioch, combined with those of Jerusalem; and there is no reason to exclude those of the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, since the Decrees reach them, and that, not onely the Church of Antioch, but also those Chur­ches, are subjected to them. Will Mr. P. grant no more, than what hee reads in express words?

2 His second is as weak, That we read of no forreigners there, but those of Antioch, and that they concurred not in the making of the Decrees. For, if there were no more forreigners, yet forreigners they were; but where doth hee read, that the Elders of Syria and Cilicia were not joyned to them? There is sufficient rea­son to conclude they were, since the Decrees reach those Churches. In saying, that these forreigners concurred not in mak­ing the Decrees, hee speaks clearly besides the book. For they being Elders, and at Jerusalem, met with the Elders of that [Page 53] Church; and hee being so punctual in holding no more than he reads in express words; Let him see whether he can exclude them from those Texts, vers. 6, 20, 22, 25, 28. & Act. 16.4. If the Forreigners were Elders, certainly these texts include them; and 'tis one of the mysterious reaches of his wit, to apprehend them excluded from the decision of the controversy, by Act. 16.4. for were not the Forreigners Elders, and were they not at Jerusalem, and in the Assembly at the making of the Decrees? how then doth this text exclude them?

3 His third is frivolous; That there was no appeal from the cen­sure of the Church at Antioch. Grant there had passed no formal censure (which is more than hee can prove) might they not ap­peal, for the deciding of what was debated, and which there could bee no joynt agreement upon? His fancied main end, of their applying themselves to the Church of Jerusalem, to get sa­tisfaction that there was the same doctrin taught at Jerusalem, that was at Antioch; sheweth that hee looketh on the Chapter, through spectacles of pre-occupation. Else hee would have seen that comming about the Question of difference, vers. 2. and the Apostles and Elders comming together to consider of the mat­ter, ver. 6. and together decreeing and laying a burden upon the Churches concerned, vers, 28. must needs evince, that the main end was, to have the question authoritatively decided. The knowing of the minde, and practice of the Church of Jerusa­lem, needed not all this work. Paul and others might have informed the Church of Antioch of it before; Any Messengers sent might soon have certified them of it; Those that came might without such a solemn convening have been assured of it. The Apostles and Elders in their Epistles shew not that they minded such an end chiefly in assembling. For though they disown the erroneous Teachers doctrine, and declare that they gave them no incouragement for it (in those words, To whom wee gave no such commandement, which is all that Mr. P. can build upon) yet they clearly manifest, that the end of their convening was, upon the hearing the difference in the Church of Antioch, to decide the Question authoritatively; and that the end of sending chosen men with Barnabas and Paul, was to give them the greater assurance of this decision, as the dependance of the 28. vers. on the 27. by the illative, for, doth clearly shew.

[Page 54]4 His fourth, is a huddle of groundlesse surmises. Here was (hee saith) no Rule exercised, because 'twould bee a diminution of Pauls Apostolical Authority. But Paul acted not then, as an Apostle, but as an Elder of the Church of Antioch. When the Elders there could not prevail against the corrupt Teach­ers, and their Doctrin, they have recourse to a Synod, joyn­ing themselves as Elders, to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusa­lem, giving herein an example of the right way of healing Church-divisions, (that cannot bee remedied in the respect­ive Churches) to the end of the world. The Apostles them­selves acted not meerly as Apostles, but as members of the Synod, yielding to a fair dispute on both sides.

Next hee saith, The Brethren concurred with the Apostles and Elders in making the Decrees, therefore there was no rule exercis­ed thereby, for it will not bee granted (by us) that the Brethren can exercise an act of rule over other Churches. I Answer, no nor over their own Church neither; But it is but supposed by him, that the Brethren out of office, concurred in making the Decrees. They consented to the making of them, or to them made, and might use their power of Liberty, as Mr. Cotton speaks, but concurred not in the act of making them, for if so, they had been their Decrees, but they are not so called, but expresly otherwise, Act. 16.4. Much lesse can wee conceive with Mr. P. that the Brethren concurred with the Elders, in a way of the same nature, assigning the difference to bee onely in the order of their concurrence. For hence it follows, that all in the Church are Rulers and guides, and have the Key of Au­thority, and binding power, which is another absurd attain­ment, wherein hee goes beyond many of his brethren, and the vanity of which hath been already observed.

The whole Church here cannot, hee saith, mean the Synodical Church onely, because the reason given for it, the impossibility of the meeting of the Church of Jerusalem, together in one place, hath been refuted by him. The Reader may look back, and see what cause hee hath to boast; and if his triumph bee but imaginary, then hee hath brought in an argument against himself.

But you must not think, that if he do shut out the Brethren from a concurrence of the same nature with the Elders, hee hath not strength enough left him to prove, that in this Assembly [Page 55] there was no Rule exercised; and for that hee will but cast an interrogation at us. Will they say that the Elders of a Classical Presbytery at Jerusalem, did exercise Rule over all these Chur­ches, so far distant, and not of their combination? This being the Tail of his arguing, a sting might bee feared in it, but 'tis quite unarmed. Wee will not say so, and yet, hee gets not any thing by it; for though wee say not, that the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, singly considered, did exercise Rule over the Churches concerned: yet wee will say, by his leave, that these Elders, and the Elders of the Churches concerned, united in Synod, and acting joyntly, did exercise Rule over those Churches; which appears both by the tenour, and by the use of the Decrees, Act. 16.4.

So that, Mr. P. is more bountiful, than maketh for the profit of his cause, in granting his adversaries, to make the most of, Act. 15.6. and Act. 16.4. For besides, that in these wee finde not the Elders of the Churches concerned excluded, but included, and as one; in the latter, wee finde the Decrees imposed on some of the Churches concerned, as ordained of the Apostles and the Elders which were at Jerusalem, at the time of the making of them, none excepted, and therefore, their joint-act of authori­ty and rule.

Hee hath now but an answer to an Objection left him, and therein hee comes off worst of all. For, to that which is said, for the exercise of authority by this meeting over the Churches (and accounted an unanswerable argument by most, and which if hee remove not, all his talk against that Synod is to no purpose) that the 28th. vers. calleth the Apostles and Elders Decrees, the laying a burden, of necessary things, upon the Churches: Hee onely saies, Let it bee considered, whether there be not as much said of the assertion of the Pharisees, vers. 5. and 10. Which, Gersom Bucer's answer, in another case, will suit well; Quis adeo ineptire sustinuerit? Who can chuse but wonder at his weakness, to put forth such a reasoning as an argument? and at his confidence, to undertake a debate of that moment, as is that which hee is upon, whilst hee appears, so much a stranger to the Laws of a true Syllogism, and reasoning? If some of the Sect of the Pharisees, contending for the necessity of circum­cision, and keeping the Ceremonial Law, are said, thereby, (tempting God) to put a yoak of Jewish bondage upon the neck of beleevers, [Page 56] and this their imposition, was not authoritatively binding; Then, when the Apostles and Elders say, that they lay by their Decrees, a burden of necessary things upon the Churches, their Decrees, are not to be accounted authoritatively binding. But some of the Pha­risees, &c. Ergo. This is his sad arguing, of the deplorableness of which, I need not any farther inform any intelligent Rea­der.

But, there is nothing like a good courage, and therefore hee concludes (bee it how it may) Thus you see, how hard it will be, to grant any more with Scripture warrant, if we should grant Clas­sical Elderships and combinations. Which difficulty, I suppose, those that have considered what hath been said, do not see at all.

But, lest men should take his Supposition of Classical Elder­ships for a grant, hee now returns to renounce them, and tells us, 1 That hee hath proved the most numerous Churches to have been congregational; To which I answer, I have disproved it. 2 That they are called severally by the name of Church in the sin­gular (that is alwaies, or else hee saies nothing) Witness, say I, the seven Churches of Asia, concerning each of which his words have been made to grant, that it is said, without reference to, or re­flection upon the rest, hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches. 3 That the numerous Church of Corinth in particular, was con­gregational. To which I say, witness 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches.

What hee subjoyns, that the body of that Church did exercise the power of the Keyes, and that the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. wraps up Elders and People together with a concurrence of the like nature, is gratis dictum, as hath been shewed. I shall adde, Though the Apostle there mention no express limitation of the power of the Keyes to the Eldership, it follows not that it is not to be un­derstood, for to whom should acts of rule be appropriated, but to the Rulers? A concurrence with them may be granted to the community, in the use of their power of liberty (as they speak) but a concurrence with them in the thing, of the like nature with the power and acts of the Elders, hee will never prove, till hee hath proved, that all are Rulers in the Church, and have a power of Office, which hee will do ad Graecas calendas. And, if the Apostles silence there, concerning the appropriation of the power of exercising Discipline to the Eldership, bee an argument [Page 57] for the communities like power: then, the sole mention of the Angels of the Churches, Rev. chap. 2. and 3. who are commen­ded for, blamed upon the neglect of, and exhorted to exercise Church-Discipline; is an argument against the communities like power therein, and a far stronger argument against it, than the other is for it, in regard that here the Holy Ghost appropriateth the power, and there hee doth not, and so by this place the o­ther is to bee expounded. Neither hath any known Writer of note in the Church, for these sixteen hundred years past (until some of the late risen Independents) understood, that in 1 Cor. 5. the Apostle wraps up Elders and People together in the exercise of Discipline, with a concurrence of the like nature; nor hath any Church during that time that wee read of (unless those of the Donatists) practised by it. And therefore well may Beza say, Quod nounulli, ex hac vocula congregatis, colligunt, Beza in locum. totius Eccle­siae coetum, in judiciis omnibus Ecclesiasticis convenisse, & suffragi­um tulisse, neque ratione, neque ullo exemplo nititur; excommuni­cationis jus, penes Pastores, [...] fuit.

‘What difference between the Episcopal and Presbyterial Go­vernment, wherein doth their constitution differ,P. 45, 46, 47, 48 except in the exorbitant power of a chair-man? What difference between the Universal Church of the Papists, and that of the Presbyterians? There is an easie transition from Presbytery to Episcopacy, yea Papacy; they agree much in nature, and therefore I have put them together; as also Mr. Bains, Diocesan Tryal, q. 1. p. 21. Those who subject themselves to a Presbytery, saith hee, as be­ing under it by subordination, may, in effect, as well be subject to an Episcopal (and by consequence, I say, to a Papal) consistory.’

Os hominis! With what face can Mr. P. put these questions? Do the Episcopal and Presbyterial Government differ onely in regard of the power of a chair-man? Do not the patrons of the for­mer attribute all power to the Bishop in his Dioces, excluding the Ministers of the several Congregations in matters of Discipline? And do not the Presbyterians assert, that all Ministers have equal power? and is this difference onely circumstantial, and the tran­sition from one to the other so easie? And as to the Univer­sal Church, is not the difference between Papists and Presby­terians vast? whilst the one do restrain it to the Romanists, that own the Papal doctrines; the other extend it to all that embrace the fundamental truths of Christian Religion, and renounce [Page 58] the abominations of Rome? (is Mr. P. so mean a scholar, that hee doth not know, as to the point in hand, what Universal and particular are? Doth not the Papists referring the root and head of their Universality to Rome, make their Church a par­ticular Church, as our Champions against them have fully e­vinced? and is this no considerable difference that the Presby­terians do the contrary?) The one subject it to the Pope, or to a general Council of Pontificial Bishops, convened by, and presi­ded in by the Pope; The others to a general Council, of the Elders of the Christian Churches, throughout the world, as­sembling in the name of Christ, as the sole head of the Church? Did I love to recriminate, might I not with more reason say, that Mr. P's. way, borders upon, and that there is an easie transition from it, to Donatism, Brownism, Ana­baptism, Familism, Quakism, Libertinism, and confusion? and that it opens a door to the setting up and nourishing of all sects, errours, heresies, false worship, and blasphemies, even the Roman themselves? For, under the notion of Independentism (of that degree as his is especially) may any thing shelter it self; and therefore the Roman Factors usually say, that in England, Pres­byterianism is a great hinderance, but Independentism a wonderful help to them, in their gaining Proselytes to the Roman Church.

But, if you were resolved to say your worst of Presbyterians, as the greatest opposers of your Democracy; yet, why must you abuse the Reverend name of Mr. Bains (whom you pretend to bee altogether of your side) and obtrude upon the Reader, a palpable untruth concerning his concent with you, in putting E­piscopacy and Presbytery together, as having little or no difference between them? It is not Mr. Bains that puts Episcopacy and Presbytery together; but the Objection of the Episcopal party, p. 3. which Mr. Bains answers here, p. 21. and in his answers, re­peats the terms of the Objection, and shews the invalidity of it. 1 By telling them that they mis-apprehended the practice of the Churches of Geneva, They have, (saies hee) power of go­verning themselves, but for greater edification, voluntarily confe­derate, not to use nor exercise their power, but with mutual commu­nication in that common Presbytery. 2 It is (saith hee) one thing for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory, where­in they shall have no power of suffrage, another thing, to commu­nicate with such a Presbytery, wherein themselves are members and [Page 59] Judges with others. 3 Say (saies hee) they had no power, nor were no members in that Presbytery; yet it is one thing to submit themselves to the government of Aristocracy, another to the Bishops Monarchical Government, for while his Presbyters are but as Counsellers to a King, though hee consulteth with them, hee alone governeth.

Let the Reader now judge, whether Mr. P. hath Mr. Bains on his side, in saying, What difference between the Episcopal and Presbyterial Government? and whether hee hath ground to say, that because they agree much in nature, Mr. Bains hath put them together; when as they are his Objectors that do it, whom hee answers and confutes. This makes mee remember, a pleasant passage in Kekermans Eccles. Rhet. l. 2. c. ult. A young Theo­logue, reciting his Postil to the people, at a time when there was health within their walls, and inveighing therein against some sins; broke out at last into this expression; hence it is, that God hath visited you and your families with the plague, which rageth already every where in our streets. The people stood amazed at this report, and when Sermon was ended, the Praetor of the place enquired of the Preacher, in what families or houses the plague was broken forth; who answered, whether the plague bee in our Town or not, so I found it it in my Postil. Such an account is Mr. P. able to give, of Mr. Bains his consent with him in put­ting Presbytery and Episcopacy together, as having no diffe­rence between them in their constitution; Whether the words of the Objection which put them together, bee Mr. Bains words, or express his mind or not, hee found them printed in his book.

And now, because Mr. P. by mentioning thus Mr. Bains, doth intimate to the Reader that his doctrine hath a full friend in him; It is to bee considered, that though Mr. Bains in his dispute against, and opposition to Diocesan Episcopal Churches, doth plead for Independency of Churches: yet as hee judged the difference between Episcopacy, and Presbyterial dependent Government very great: So doth hee fully declare against that Democratical Government in Churches, which most of the Independents of our daies, and Mr. P. among them, do plead for; and doth very fully assert the whole power of Government, into the hands of the Elders, in many places of that book. I shall cite some of them to make Mr. P. do penance.

P. 80. on Matth. 18. Christ doth not by the name of Church, understand essentially, all the Congregation, for then Christ should not give some, but all the members of the Church to be Governours of it. Christ speaketh it of such a Church, to whom wee may ordi­narily and orderly complain, now this cannot be to the whole multi­tude. This Church hee speaketh of, hee doth presuppose it as the ordinary executioner of all Discipline and censure; But the multi­tude have not this execution, as all but Morelius, and such Demo­cratical spirits do affirm. P. 81. The Church in the Old Te­stament noteth an assembly of Priests, sitting together as Judges in the causes of God, and Christ doth here onely presuppose the joynt authority, and joynt execution of a representative Church, a Presby­tery of Elders, who were Pastors and Governours. P. 82. The Apostles, in determining the Question, Act. 15. had the joynt-suf­frages of the Presbytery with them, because it was a thing to be de­termined by many, all who (mark that) had received power of the Keyes, doing it ex officio, and others from discretion and duty of confessing the truth. P. 83. Ordinary power with the execution thereof, was not given to the Community of the Church, or to the whole multitude of the faithful, so that they were the immediate and first receptacle receiving it from Christ, and vertually deriving it to others. P. 84. Ordinary power of Ministerial Government, is committed, with the execution of it, to the Senate or Presbytery of the Church. If any fail in any office (mark that) the Church hath not power of supplying that, but a Ministery, of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ hee may have power of office given him in the place vacant. So much for Mr. P's. cor­rection.

One thing more I have to consider, and so shall end this Section.

P. 46. ‘Let it be seriously considered, that the Bishop of Rome is not reckoned the Antichrist, from what time hee got the peaceable possession of his Universal Bishoprick; But from what time hee aspired to, and carried it ambitiously, and had it usually yeelded to him, to sway Bishops and Churches at his pleasure.’

Wee have considered it, and finde no very good sense in it. For when hee had it usually yeelded to him, to sway Bishops and Churches at his pleasure, hee had the peaceable possession of his universal Bishoprick. And as to what you mean, that hee did aspire to an Universal headship long before hee was possessed of [Page 61] it; and that from that time of aspiring, hee is reckoned Antichrist, you bring no Scripture, nor reason for it, but onely quote a place of Mr. Cotton, as if [...] would do the deed. Now, what saies Mr. Cotton? The head was in conception long before Pho­cas his grant. True, for 'twas in conception in the Apostles daies, and yet, I suppose, he would not say the Bishop of Rome was Antichrist then. Is it likely the Holy Ghost should speak of him, as of a formed, apparent, compleat head (so visible, that all the world should wonder after the Beast upon the hearing of it) whilst hee was but yet in his conception? And it is certain, there was not any claim laid by the Bishops of Rome to the Ʋniversal headship, any long time before it was possessed by them. The first that laid claim to it, was not the Bishop of Rome, but John the fourth, sirnamed the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople, about the year, 580. (six and twenty years before the matter was de­termined by Phocas, for the Bishop of Rome in the year, 606.) The Bishop of Rome, at the same time, strongly opposing, and disputing against the name and title of Universal Bishop, as the name of the Beast, and a new and prophane title, contrary to the scope of the Gospel, which none of his Predecessors did ever use. Saying, that whosoever calleth himself, or desireth to bee called, Greg. Magn. lib. 6. Ep. 30. & lib. 4. Ep. 34, & 38. the Universal Priest or Bishop, is the fore-runner of Antichrist, and that in regard the said John did assume it, it appeared that the time of Antichrist was now at hand. And to that John, hee saith, What wilt thou answer to Christ, in the tryal of the day of judgement, seeing that by this name Universal, thou seekest to inthral the members of his body to thy self. What Mr. P. proceeds to say upon his supposition is not worth the con­sidering; and so I come to see how well hee answers the objections that hee considers as made against his separating device.

SECT. VI. An examination of Mr. P's. Answers, to the Objections hee mentions, as made against his doctrine of Separation; and of his Reasons for Separation.

‘OBject. 1 It will bee said, this way of separation that you press,P. 49, 50, 51, 52 nulls all (at least the most part of) the reformed [Page 62] Churches in the world. Answ. This tends not to null, or make void, the faith of true beleevers, that shall bee found in the a­foresaid waies of Church-order. I deny not their faith, where­by by they are of the Mystical Church, and accordingly destroy not their Mystical Churchdome, but assert, that though their faith hee Christian, their order is Antichristian. I deny them to bee such Churches as Christ hath instituted, and to bee the Candlesticks, that stand before the God of the earth. Some have had power, to set up Christs order, in the face, and to the teeth of the Beast, though they were slain for it. Such was the Congregation in Queen Maries time, which Mr. Fox mentions; and those hundred persons which Mr. Cotton menti­ons (Congr. Way cleared p. 4.) that were in Queen Eli­zabeths days. 1576.’

‘'Tis one thing for Churches to bee looked upon as Churches, in point of salvation, another thing, for them to bee looked up­on as Churches, in respect of outward constitution; in the for­mer account, wee cannot but give the right hand of fellowship, to all that look to no other way of salvation, but by the blood of the Lambe; in the latter account, wee can give the right hand of fellowship, onely to those that are after the heavenly pat­tern.’

Answ. Hee needed not to say, that his way nulls at least the most part of the reformed Churches, for it clearly nulls them all; The Churches of his way and princi­ples, being not to bee numbered among the Reformed Chur­ches, since they renounce them, and account them Anti­christian. So that his way clearly nulls all the reformed Churches in the world at this day; yea generally, all the Churches that have disowned the Papal Church of Rome, throughout the ages since the rise of it.

His Answer, whereby hee would salve the matter, is exceed­ing frivolous and childish. Hee denies not the faith of true be­leevers in reformed Churches, nor their mystical Churchdome. But what is that to the purpose? whilst hee denies them to be Churches of Christ, and to bee the candlesticks that stand be­fore the God of the earth (by which hee weakly understands Churches, of which Sect. 4.) doth hee not utterly null them as Churches? Neither will that passage shield him (wherein hee clearly contradicts himself) that 'tis one thing for Churches [Page 63] to bee looked upon as Churches, in point of salvation, another, to bee looked upon as Churches in respect of outward constitution, &c.

For if they are not to bee looked upon as Churches in respect of outward constitution, they are not to bee looked upon as Churches at all; unless hee can make it appear, that beleevers out of Church-order, make up Churches, and that there are many mystical Churches. And if reformed Churches are to be looked upon as Churches in point of salvation, they looking to no other way of salvation but by the bloud of the Lamb, and he can give the right hand of fellowship to them on that account; hee thereby asserts their Churchstate, and separates practically from them, therefore, without sufficient ground. For if they are Churches in point of salvation, they have the essentials of Church-order, and are not to bee separated from. The Pro­testants would not have separated from the Church of Rome, if they could have looked upon her (especially after the Sanctions of the Trent Council) as a Church in point of Sal­vation, looking to no other way of salvation but by the blood of the Lamb.

So that notwithstanding his distinctions, Mr. P's doctrine doth absolutely null all the Reformed Churches, and all Chur­ches that have disowned Papal Rome, from the rise of Anti­christ to this last age; And thereby denyeth that there hath been a true Ministery, and a true Church-state, during many hundreds of years since Christ, in the world. Directly contra­ry to, Matth. 28.19, 20. Eph. 4.11, 12, 13. Rev. 11.1, 2. Rev. 14.1, 8. Eph. 3.21.

To the instances which hee brings, of Churches of his way, ushering them in with a boast of their setting up Christs order, in the face, and to the teeth of the beast, though in danger to bee slain for it; I Answer, that surely the Congregational Brethren of our daies, have not waded through such great dangers in contending for, and setting up their popular government. They have had, and have, as much countenance from the Ci­vil Powers, as they can desire. On which account many have struck in with Independency, to bee of the rising side. (Surely there are some whom they know, that have out-gone them in sufferings, for cleaving to their principles) and whilst the Powers did oppose their way heretofore, flying to New-Eng­land [Page 64] and Holland, was not a setting up of the order which they deemed to bee Christ's, in the face, and to the teeth of the Beast.

But to his instances. I suppose that Congregation in Queen Marie's daies, to have consisted of holy persons, but cannot from the relation that History gives us of it, see upon what grounds hee presumes them to have been a party of his own way, in point of order and government. Mr. Bentham their last Minister, is there said to have been soon after, Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, and therefore in all probability no Independent. As to the hundred persons in Queen Elizabeths daies, which Mr. Cotton mentions, I should have liked their witnessing against the corruptions in the Church, so far forth as their call would bear them out: but if they separated from the Congregations in England in general, as no true Churches, no man is able to prove their separation lawful by the word of God; and the words of the same Mr. Cotton, pag. 14. of that book, will condemn them, where hee saith, Mr. Robinsons denial of the Parishional Congregations in England to bee true Churches, was never received into any heart, from thence to infer a nullity of their Church-state; Neither was our departure from them, even in those evil times, a separation from them as no Churches.

So that, grant these two companies to have been In­dependent Churches; yet, if they separated from the Chur­ches of England, as no true Churches, they were in Mr. Cottons judgement, so farre in an errour; and much more is Mr. P. for nulling all the reformed Churches in the world, whereby he maketh his Independentism to become Donatism.

Hee addeth to justify himself, ‘Wee must not for respect to a right faith, swallow a wrong Order; hath not the letting go the right Order,p. 52. let in a wrong faith?’ Yes, it hath indeed by those of your way most evidently. For whereas the word of God placeth most evidently the power of Church-government in the Officers of the Church, as hath been above proved: your letting go this Gospel-Order, and bringing in the room of it a phantastick Democratical government, strange to the word of God, hath let in a wrong faith with a witnesse; for at this back door have entered all the rabble of Sectaries, Anabaptists (now generally at least semi-Papists) Seekers, Quakers, and [Page 65] Fifth-Monarchy-men of the last edition, enemies to Magistra­tical and Ministerial power, as their seditious Pamphlets, Ser­mons, and practices, tending to imbrew the State in blood, and Church in confusion, do witness.

Object. 2 ‘It will be said, this laies a ground to question all the Ordinances, that have been administered in any other way,P. 52. to 55 than that which you press for, whether they are to be counted null and void. Answ. Some Ordinances have been corrupted in the essentials of them, as the Lords Supper in the Popish-Churches, and when so, they become no Ordinances, and of no efficacy. Others were circumstantially corrupted onely, as Baptism, and when so, though wee have cause to be humbled, yet wee cannot reject the Ordinance. When 'tis promised that the Woman should be nou­rished in the Wilderness, Rev. 12.6. it must needs imply, that there should be some Ordinances preserved from corruption, in their essentials, and that Gods people should be accepted in the use of them. Yet, that is no argument against coming out of the Wilderness; no more is the validness of Ordinances, in the Epis­copal, Classical, Parochial Churches, against separating from them. And this separation, doth not require rebaptization, for 1 The Scripture speaks nothing of it. 2 Wee must either own our Baptism, received in the Catholick visible Church of Rome the Mother, or in the Diocesan or National Churches the Har­lot Daughters; or else wee must conclude, that the Churches owned of God, during the four and twenty months of Antichrist, of which, Rev. 11.4. shall want utterly the initiatory seal of the New Testament, and of this wee finde no president or hint in Scripture; Or else there must be an extraordinary way, of re­viving the lost Ordinance of Baptism in these Churches, and of this, I know neither promise nor experience, for these hundreds of years, since there have been such Churches. Therefore, the first must be granted; for, from the Churches rest, till the Wil­derness began to set up particular visible Churches, by the Wal­denses and Albigenses, 'tis rare to finde a man, that would ac­knowledge any other Church than the Beast and his Images, that would acknowledge a particuliar visible Church.’

Answ. It is hard for Mr. P. to manage an argument, that doth not fall back upon his cause. In answering this second Objection, hee overthrows what hee had said, and condemns his way of Separation; which will easily appear, in making his [Page 66] concessions to speak out, what they at first sight are capable to in­fer that way.

1 Hee grants, that when Ordinances are not corrupted in the essentials, but onely in the circumstantials of them, wee cannot re­ject them; and thereby hee condemns his denying of our Mini­stery and Church-State to bee true, for are they corrupted in their essentials? Will not his distinction keep our Ordination, Ministery, and Church-State from being null, as well as the Or­dinance of Baptism? The same way as hee will maintain the validness of this, wee will the validness of those; and the same exceptions that hee can make against the validness of those, will equally strike at the validness of this; Let him try and hee shall finde it to be so.

2 Hee grants that the Womans being nourished in the Wilderness, implies, that Ordinances were preserved in their essentials, and Gods people accepted in the use of them, and that there were Churches owned of God, during the four and twen­ty months of Antichrist. Whereby, hee clearly condemneth that intercision of a true Church-State, which hee had before as­serted, frequently and lately, p. 52. where hee saith, I deny them not (speaking of Churches not Independent, and there were none considerable but such till these late daies) to bee the Woman nourished in the Wilderness, but I deny them to be the Candlesticks (that is true Churches, in his sense.) And here, Till the Walden­ses and Albigenses, began to set up particular visible Churches, 'tis very rare to finde a man, that would acknowledge any other Churches than the Beast and his Images. So also, hee condemns here, his restraining of a true Church-State to Independent Churches, in saying, that during that time (wherein hee saith there were Churches owned of God) particular visible Churches, (that is as Independent) were not acknowledged. So that hence must bee inferred, whether hee will or no, that the Churches not Independent, renouncing Rome, during the four and twenty months, which includes our age, were and are true Churches, and so not to bee looked upon as Antichristian, and Harlot Daughters of Rome (as his charity calls them) nor to bee sepa­rated from. Which would farther appear, if wee should take in his notion of the Candlesticks (Sect. 4th.) for, they are in his sense Churches, and they prophesie one thousand two hundred and sixty daies, which is four and twenty months Rev. 11.3, 4 [Page 67] and there were during that time, till this last age, at least till the Waldenses, by his own concession, no considerable In­dependent Churches; Therefore, the preceding Churches, not Independent, renouncing Rome-Papal, and ours their succes­sors, were and are true Churches, and (if Churches bee properly Witnesses) at least, as truly Witnesses as the Congregational, and not to bee separated from.

But, hee seeming to foresee, that hee opened us a gap to strike at his separation, saith, That the validness of Ordinances in our way, stands no more against separating from our Churches, than the validness of them when received in the Church of Rome, against separation from it. A doughty reasoning. Hee knows, that wee plead, besides the validness of Ordinances among us, a renouncing of the Idolatries of Rome's worship, and a Profes­sing and owning of the true doctrines of Christianity, in opposi­tion to Rome's blasphemies and fundamental Antichristian er­rours. And surely, the validness of Ordinances so accompa­nied, renders a separation from us, and our Churches, of quite another nature than that from Antichristian Rome; which, if in­considerateness and prejudice lay not in many rolles upon the eies of his understanding, hee could not chuse but see. Thus, the matter of his answer recoiles upon himself, of which more may bee said, Sect. 11.

As to the form of it, in relation to the Objection, it removes it not at all. For what saies hee? The Ordinances are not to be accounted essentially null, but the Church-State in the which they were administred is to bee accounted null; for hee calls all re­formed Churches, images of the Beast, and Harlot Daughters of Rome, and his way sets up a new Church-State, distinguish­ed and differenced in essential respects from that of all those Churches. Now, if their Church-State hath been null, their Ministery hath been null, and consequently the Ordinances administered by such a Ministery null, and so the Objection remains in full force against him, notwithstanding all his stri­ving to assoil it, and his principles drive to rebaptizing or Seekism, chuse hee whether.

Neither let him say, that this toucheth us also, who have se­parated from Rome as a false Church, through which notwith­standing wee had our Ministery and Ordinances; for hee may know, and shall bee told anon, that our principles and ap­prehensions [Page 68] about this matter, do exceedingly differ from his.

I shall close this with those Queries upon his riddles. 1 Are the Woman nourished in the Wilderness, and the Churches owned of God during the four and twenty months, all one or not? 2 Had the Woman in the Wilderness, that had Or­dinances preserved from corruption in their essentials, and was accepted in the use of them, any true Church-State or not? 3 Were the Churches that are said to have been these hun­dreds of years, and owned of God, Independent Churches or not? 4 Did the Waldenses and Albigenses set up Independent Churches, which seem here to bee meant by particular visible Churches? If I had his positive answer to these, I should say something more to him. But hee here delivers himself obscure­ly about these things, as those use to do that are such as the A­postle speaks of, 1 Tim. 1.7.

Object. 3 ‘But many godly men have worshiped God zealous­ly in this way, and do still, and God hath been, and is still, no question,P. 59. 60. found of them. Answ. This must be looked on as an indulgence of God unto sincerity, owning what is of himself, ming­led with much of man. They are much deceived, that think it is enough to say for a way, that they have found God in it, or rather in something of his that is practised in it.’

Answ. That the Lord is found of any of us his poor ser­vants, seeking him in his waies, wee humbly acknowledge to be of his gracious indulgence, owning what is of himself mingled with much of man. And will not you say the same concern­ing your selves? But that our way of worship, and our Church-State, are not in the main according to divine Institution, is that which you have not, nor will ever prove. Wee grant, that they are much deceived, &c. and it toucheth us not, for wee think not that it is enough to say so; And wee suppose, that this may better serve to indoctrinate those of your way, than us; for it is not rare with many of them, to judge of a way, by the Impressions they have upon their spirits, concerning, or in the use of it, more than by Rule. But the Question should bee, whether God is as much found, of those that seek him in a false way, and much swerving from his institution, as of those that seek him in a way conformable to his Institution? I sup­pose you will answer negatively. But now, through Gods goodness, wee are able to say, that God is and hath been as [Page 69] much found of us, in our Churches and way, and our Ministers have received as glorious a seal of their Ministery, as any Churches that wee know of, since the Apostles daies, and farre more than our Congregational Brethren themselves in their way; who although they deal out this hard measure to us, to cry down our Ministery and Churches, as Antichristian, owe most of them that are renewed, their conversion unto God, unto our Ministery, as the instrument for it in Gods hand, themselves being Judges. Though they had ten thousand In­dependent Instructors, yet could they not say they are their Fa­thers, for in Christ Jesus the Ministery of our Churches hath begotten them to the Gospel. If I am become a fool in glory­ing, they have compelled mee.

Object. 4 ‘But there may be, and hath been good done this way, errours suppressed, &c. and those that reject it now,P. 61. made use of it once. Answ. The good that God brings out of evil, is not to be construed into a divine approbation of it, Nor the use that hath been made by good men of a false way of Churches, to bee drawn into an argument to continue in it.’

Answ. What good there hath been done by reformed Churches, few can bee ignorant of: What good hath been done by Independent Churches, hath not yet much appeared. That some of their flocks are pure, they owe to our Churches, as hath been said. Errours have been indeed suppressed by ours, but not by theirs, (it appears therefore they have made but a bad exchange;) but cherished by many of them, who have been to them as Cities of refuge, and out of which they have swarmed abundantly, into all parts of the Land, and for this the Land groans. And thinks Mr. P. to put off this so sleight­ly, with his begged supposition, of the truth of the Churches of his way, and the falseness of ours? Surely, the beating down of errour, and the promoting of truth, is no contemptible note of a true Church, though some corruptions bee found in it, Rev. 2.2, 4. and on the contrary, &c.

That those that owned our Churches once, have now rejected them, I judge from the word to be their sin. They should have continued in them, since Christ hath not divorced them (though he hath somewhat against them) and have indeavoured to reform them. But they have not laboured to heal, yea, they have widen­ed and encreased our wounds; and then they insult over us, Anti­christianize [Page 70] us, separate from us, and draw away the best of our flocks, boasting in other mens lines, of things made ready to their hands. The Lord judge between us and them.

Object. 5. and 6. ‘But, shall wee do it without the authori­ty of the Magistrate?P. 62, 63, 64 without the consent of the Church? Answ. That which is pressed, is but the doing of the duty that lies upon every Christian, to separate from unwarrantable socie­ties. The Text hath no such proviso, if the Magistrate bid or give you leave, then come out of Babylon. Therefore, wee are to resolve with Peter Martyr, and with Wollebius, &c. After God hath made known his truth, (saies the first) wee must not delay. Consent indeed is to be expected, if the matter be dubious and obscure, (to wit, to him to whom it is revealed, as the course of his speech makes manifest.)’

Answ. The Magistrate is as no body with you (unless you have him on your side, and then you can change your note.) But wee hold, that very much respect is to bee had to the Ma­gistrate in this matter, and all means possible are to bee used, to ingage the Magistrate to carry on the work of Reformation. Give mee but one example in all the Old Testament, of any con­siderable reformation in the Church, without the interpositi­on of the power of the Magistrate; or one example of it in Ec­clesiastical history, in a time when there were Christian Magi­strates. Can our Magistrates endure, that their authority and power should bee contemned as it is? I hope they will not, but that they will exert it for the good of the Church, in dis­countenancing, restraining, and punishing, men of corrupt minds, principles, and practices, leading to separation, blas­phemies, errours and rebellion; sheltring themselves under this notion, that the Magistrate hath nothing to do with Church-mat­ters, and that all men are therein to bee left to their liberty, and the dictates of their own spirits.

The places that you pick out of Martyr and Wollebius, favour not your fancy. The place of Wollebius, taken in his sense, I readily yeeld to. That when Religion is depraved, it is to bee re­formed by the Magistrate; But if reformation cannot be obtained of the Magistrate, hee being an enemy to the Church, then refor­mation lies upon those whom God hath furnished with necessary gifts for it; neither is the consent of Roman Bishops to bee expected, for, if our Fathers had done so (saies hee) there would have been no re­formation. [Page 71] And hee produceth the examples of Gideon, Je­hoiada, the Maccabes, the Apostles, &c. to make good his as­sertion. Now when you shall have proved, 1 That the supreme Magistrate is an enemy of Religion, the Church and reformation. 2 That the way of reformation you contend for, is indeed the way of God. 3 That all lawful means have been used, and notwithstanding reformation cannot be obtain­ed at the Magistrates hands. 4 That Englands condition, and the State of the Church in the time of Gideon, Jehoiada, the Maccabes, the Apostles, and Protestant reformers, are alike. 5 That you have Instruments that have the like call from God, and are furnished with such abilities for reforming as they had and were; Then, I confess, this place will speak something for you. 6 The reformation Wollebius speaks of, referres chiefly to essentials in Religion, and that hee is an Antagonist to your way of separation from reformed Churches, appears suffici­ently in his book. Martyr you much mistake also. 1 The reformation hee presseth, referres chiefly to fundamentals in Re­ligion. 2 Those whose consent hee saies was not to bee ex­pected, were the Roman Bishops, whom hee calls sworn ene­mies to the truth. 3 Hee doth not incite and stirre up the peo­ple, to set upon the work, without the consent of the Magistrate, but the inferiour Magistrates, to endeavour in their places a reformation of Religion, in banishing the impure Masse out of their Cities, &c. and how doth this reach your case? 4 The cause, hee saies, was clear, and such as was confessed to be Gods, and delaies might indanger the loss of a good cause. Consent, in­deed, saies hee, is to be expected, if the matter bee dubious and ob­scure. And here you bring in your shameful Parenthesis (to wit, to whom it is revealed) which Parenthesis spoils and abuseth Peter Martyrs Text; For his words clearly import, to any man that will read there, that the cause was not onely clear unto them, whom hee endeavours to interest in carrying on the work of reformation, but clear in it self, and not as to its matter dubious and obscure, being such, as all the Churches on earth, but the Romish, would own. For shame, leave off your abusing of Authors, at which work I have caught you more than once or twice in this Treatise. Again, your Parenthesis is full fraught with all seeds of Rebellion against the State, as well as of confusion in the Church of God. For, if men may freely follow [Page 72] the apprehensions of their own misguided judgements, and de­luded fancies, against the mind of the Magistrate, and consent of the Church of God: How shall our Religion, or Liberties, Persons Estates, or Lives bee secured to us? Probably, the late fift-Monarchy-Traitours, had read your Treatise. I find a harmony between their remonstrance and your book, in ma­ny passages; and I am sure, they will assert the cause they undertook was clear to them, and then your parenthesis bears them out, they needed not to expect any consent.

You now conclude, notwithstanding all Objections; ‘Let those whose hearts God hath raised up, go up and build his house. Get wee our brethren,p. 64. if we can, along with us, but let us not de­lay our duty.’

Indeed, reformation-work is blessed work, but people had need to have better guides than you in it, lest they mistake their way, and whilst they think they are flying from Babylon, they fly indeed into it; for thither your way drives, though I suppose you perceive it not. Babylon and you are farther agreed, than all men are aware of. 1 The Pope cries down all Churches as Antichristian, and heretical, but his own, especially Protestant Churches. Mr. P. proclaimes all Churches that are not of his way, to bee Antichristian, and especially the Western re­formed Churches, called Protestants, to bee Babylon-Harlots, &c. 2 Mr. P. is an earnest contender for Democratical, and against Presbyterial Government. The Pope, hee hates a Scripture Presbytery at his heart, but favours, by his agents, Democratical government, hoping to work out his own de­signes by it. And therefore, his disguised Agents, insinuate into Independent congregations, and strengthen them in their way of independency and separation, as that which best helps on their work, and gives them the greatest advantage for the sowing of their bad seed. Hence have proceeded from such Congregations, Anabaptists, &c. with Popish doctrines and arguments in their mouths. Therefore let Mr. P. beware, lest a blind zeal betray him, and that instead of a Reformer, hee prove a Deformer (leading men to Rome, whilst hee calls up­on them to come out of it) for men of his understanding, spirit, and confidence, are usually in danger to prove such in the end.

Consider wee now, his reasons for separation from our Churches.

‘The Reasons of the point are, 1 Because Antichrists Chur­ches are sin. The great Beast spoken of, Rev. 13, 1, 2. is the Ʋniversal visible Church of Rome. It cannot bee meant of the Roman Pagan, nor Christian Empire, nor of Antichrist which is the other beast, vers. 11. hee is one of the heads, but not the Beast it self. Antichrist causeth an image to be made to the first Beast, vers. 14. that is, to set a Church in every Na­tion, &c. that may have the likenesse of the Roman Church, viz. Metropolitan, National, Diocesan, Cathedral, and Provincial Churches, as Mr. Cotton shews on Rev. 13. and these are the living Characters of the first Beast, the Catholick visible Church of Rome, and so the image, and the Parishes are but reliques of them.’

Protestant Churches; are it seems, Antichrist his Churches, and SIN, in the abstract, if Mr. P. may bee judge. If hee can prove them to bee so, they are no doubt to bee separated from, but hitherto, hee hath not come neer it.

Here hee seems to summe up his grounds, of so bold an asser­tion; which arise from an interpretation of Rev. 13.

This Chapter, hath alwaies much perplext Interpreters, to make out what is meant by these two Beasts; both because of what is said of them, and because they seem to bee spoken of as but one Beast, vers. 18. and chap. 17. Some will have the first Beast, to bee the Roman Pagan Empire, the second the Pope.

But the stream of Interpreters, generally understand them to bee one and the same beast, the Pope of Rome, under a double notion; and Bellarmine himself,Per unam, ex­primitur Anti­christus ratione Regiae potesta­tis & tyranni­dis; per alte­ram, ratione magicae artis, qua callidè ho­mines seducet. judgeth that the same Anti­christ is meant by both, indifferent respects.

But, however it be, it may easily bee made to appear, that the first beast cannot mean, as Mr. Cotton, and Mr. P. from him would have it, the Catholick visible Church of Rome.

1 Because such a Church supposeth an Vniversal visible head, for these are relates; But there was no universal visible head, un­till long after the time of the wound which Mr. Cotton men­tions, the year 415; For Phocas conferred the universal head­ship on Boniface the third, in the year 606. and not long be­fore that, Gregory disclaimeth such a title and power.

2 Because the setting of Diocesan, &c. See the end of Sect. 5. Churches in every na­tion, cannot bee a making of an Image to the Catholick visible [Page 74] Church of Rome; Since these as Papal, are parts of that Church, and help to make it up: And that the Image will then bee more perfect than the Original, or pattern. For the Catholick visible Church of Rome, was never such in that manner and measure before, as after the wound. Yea, the Visible Catho­lickness of the Church of Rome, hath little or no appearance at all in Historie, before that time of the wound.

3 Because the things predicated of this first Beast, vers. 2. are no way applicable to the Catholick visible Church of Rome, especially before that time of the wound. The power of a Bear, and of a Lyon, and of the Dragon, giving it his seat, and great au­thority; cannot bee found in History, to have been possessed and exercised, by the Catholick Visible Church of Rome, be­fore that time. And a man must speak meer dreams that will undertake, to make what is said of the first Beast, unto the rise of the second, vers. 11. to suit to the uni­versal Visible Church of Rome, before that rising of the se­cond.

4 Because, the Text expresly distinguisheth between the Beast that exerciseth Soveraign rule and authority, and those that are under his rule and Government. Hee is set forth, vers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Those under his rule are set forth by their admi­ring of him, and worshipping and subjecting to him, vers. 3, 4, 7, 8. and these make up the Roman Catholick Visible Church.

Mr. P's foundation therefore is found to bee null, and so con­sequently his inferences from it fall to the ground.

2 ‘Because they are Harlots, and will intice, and draw away to their lewd Courses.p. 67, 68. Babylon hath golden pretences, for her abominable idolatries; The prevention of Schisms, and Heresies, for a Catholick Church visible; Reverence to the womb that bare us, and the paps that gave us suck, for Metropolitan, Na­tional, Diocesan, Parish-Churches, &c. And shee is stubborn, shee will not return to you. Gods people would have cured her, but shee is not cured. None that would have thorough reformation, dare take the whole Parish along with them to the work. Why should they bee washed at the same laver (at least their children) that may not eat at the same Table? Let us take the Prophets Counsel; forsake wee Babylon, and go e­very one to his own Country; Let us wash our hands of her, and expect what God hath determined of her, as Du plessis once said of the Roman Church.’

Babylon, and the best reformed Churches in the Christian World that are not of his way, are all one with this modest Theologue. Rome renounceth, abhorreth, anathematizeth them; and they have separated from, renounce and abhor Rome's Doctrin and Worship; and yet, this peece of subtilty finds them to bee one and the same Babylon. Surely, should the Pope understand what service this Separatist's book tends to do him, in proclaiming the Protestant Churches to be Harlots, and the Babylon to bee separated from, hee would account him­self endebted to him for it.

They are Harlots (saies hee) they have leud courses, abomina­ble Idolatries; and what are they? A Catholick Church visible, and National and Parish Churches, these are abominable Ido­latries, in Mr. P's Atheological Divinity. Of the two latter I have spoken enough before, to vindicate them from this charge; I shall now adde something, to what hath been said for the former. A Catholick visible Church, hath been al­waies generally acknowledged among Christians in all ages; So that Mr. P. laies abominable Idolatry, to the charge of all the Christian Churches, that have been, unto this last age; yea, of some of those writers that have appeared on the side of the congregational way. Dr. Ames saith, that the Church never ceaseth to bee visible (which cannot bee understood of any pa­ticular Church, for that may fail) and that Particular Con­gregations, are as similar parts of the Catholike Church, and so participate of its name and nature; and those that by profession onely are beleevers, whilst they remain in a society, are members of that Church, as also of the Catholick Church, in respect of its External estate. And in Bell. Enerv. Wee acknowledge the Mi­litant Church to bee visible, as to its outward, and accidental form, in its parts both separated and conjoyned. What can bee more plain? But let us briefly consider, what Scripture saies to it, Act. 8.3. speaks of a visible Church, else it could not have been persecuted, and yet not of a particular Church, for the persecution was in Jerusalem, Damascus, in every Syna­gogue, in strange Cities, yea, against all of that way; there­fore it speaks of the Catholick visible Church. 1 Cor. 10.2. must needs bee understood of it also. 1 Cor. 12.28. is too clearly for it, to bee denyed with any likely reason; for, 1 The Church here spoken of is an Organical Church. 2 It cannot [Page 74] [...] [Page 75] [...] [Page 76] bee understood of a particular Church, Apostles, and Pro­phets, being Catholick-Officers. 3 It must therefore bee un­derstood collectively, of all that were within the bounds of the Apostles Commission, the Church in the whole world. Indeed, this whole Chapter treats of the Catholick visible Church. All the members of Christ mystical are one body, vers. 12. & 20. Jews and Gentiles are baptized into one body, vers. 13. and they are one Church, vers. 28. Eph. 3.10. cannot mean otherwise, nor Eph. 3.21. What Church can the Church of all ages mean, but the Catholick Visible Church? Which, though some par­ticular Churches, may and have failed, hath continued, and shall continue in all ages. Matth. 16.18. proves this, and the point in hand; for, it may not bee understood of any particu­lar Church, and it cannot bee understood of the Invisible Church, as distinct from the visible; for the invisible Church, is not built upon a visible profession, as Peters was; and the Church here spoken of, is such whereof the Keyes are given to Peter, and every Minister of Christ, to let in members, and eject scandalous sinners; Now, how a member of the invisible Church, as such, can by a censure bee cast out of the Church in­visible, who can see? but, out of the Church visible hee may bee cast, therefore, this Text speaks clearly of the Catholike Church Visible, against which the gates of hell shall not pre­vail.

Adde to this, that all the Metaphors, that set out the Church in Scripture, shews the unity of the Catholike Church as visi­ble. Shee is a Woman, Rev. 12.1. One sheepfold, John 10.16. One body, Rom. 12.5. The House, Temple, City of God, 1 Tim. 3.15. Eph. 2.19. Heb. 12.22. Rev. 3.12, &c. Therefore Mt. P's eyes were bloud-shotten, when hee wrote, that a Catholike visi­ble Church, is an Abominable Idolatry. But hee is angry, it seems, at the pretence too, and makes it a peece of Babylons gol­den cup; to wit, the prevention of Schisms and Heresies (what hee insinuates thereby, that Protestant Churches have but this pretence for it, and no ground in the Word, is untrue, and unworthy) Surely wee may think, that Mr. P. sees, that the opposing of Schisms strikes at his Democracy, and separation, and that therefore hee is not well pleased with the prevention of Schisms; if they bee let alone, his Schism will escape a­mong them. But Protestant Churches have not so learn't [Page 77] Christ, knowing that they are injoyned to take the Foxes, and the little Foxes that spoil the vines, Cant. 2.15. and to mark them that cause divisions, and offences, and avoid them, Rom. 16.17. and to have no divisions among them, 1 Cor. 1.10. and that when single Churches cannot effect this, they must labour to do it united, so fully as the case will require, Act. 15.

What hee addds, to prove the stubbornnesse of Protestant Churches, (which his dialect terms Babylon) that Gods People would have cured her, but shee is not cured; is an impudent, un­reasonable, and false speech. Wonderfull impudence it is, es­pecially in such a Theologaster, as hee, that needs to be taught what a Church is, to charge all reformed Churches with stub­bornnesse in evil; Stubbornnesse is a sinning against light, and conviction, and what audaciousnesse is it, in this aeccuser of the brethren, to publish in print, that all the reformed Churches sin against conviction, in cleaving to their Church-state, and way of government? Unreasonable also it is, for him to say, that Gods people would have cured Protestant Churches; for thereby, hee seems to confine Gods people to those of his way, and those of his way, have not, I am sure, put forth requisite in­deavours to cure our Churches (supposing them to bee sick of Romish diseases) unlesse reviling of them to the uttermost, neglect of means to reform them, separating from them as fast as they can, yea while, and when they are reforming, drawing away others, lest they should help to reform them, and pro­claiming them to bee Antichristian, and wholely to bee rased, bee requisite indeavours to cure them; and that destroying of them bee curing of them. Nay, 'tis sufficiently known, to those that have acquainted themselves with the carriages of our and their Church-guides, in these late years, that when o­vertures were made by ours, for an accommodation, and for unity in reformation, upon Scripture principles, it was refus­ed; and the hopeful beginnings of it, broken off by them. Yet I must not be so much a Disciple of Mr. P. as to say, that they were stubborn therein, though there bee much moer ground to say it of them, than of us. False also it is, to say Universally, that Protestant Churches are not cured, by indeavours put forth for their cure; For, though not by Independents, I con­fesse, yet by the indeavours of many zealous Protestants, much of that, which looked like something of Rome, and was [Page 78] more according to the Traditions of men, than the word of God, hath been removed, and in particular in our Land; which notwithstanding the prejudice Mr. P. is overgrown with, hee cannot, I suppose, but acknowledge. I confesse, much of cor­ruption there is remaining, but such as cannot by the rule of the Word, deprive Protestant Churches of their Church-state, or render it Antichristian.

What hee saith next, That none of those that would have a thorough Reformation, dare take their whole Parish along with them to the work, as it is nothing to his purpose (for corruption in manners, proves not a Church to bee Antichristian) so it is ridiculously propounded. For though a godly Minister, that is a Pastor to a Parish-Congregation, think not all in a meetness for the Lords-Supper, nor admits them all to it; yet it follows not, that hee takes not the whole Parish-Congregation along with him to the work of Reformation, considering it in a Scriptural sense. Hee may speak to all, admonish all, instruct all, and indeavour to reform all, though hee administer the Supper onely to those who are fit for it; and it is one of Mr. P's Slanders, to say as hee doth of our Ministers, that they lay aside the most of their people, as the Jews the Samaritans; for they own their membership, tell them in relation to the Supper, they have a Fundamental right, though not a proximate right to present participation, being as yet unfit; receive them to all Ordinances that they are capable to profit by, and exhort them to labour in the use of means, for fitnesse for the use of all Ordinances, and then they shall rejoyce to administer e­ven the Lords Supper to them; and is this to lay them aside, as the Jews the Samaritans? No more, than the keeping from the Passeover under the Law, those that were judged by the Law to bee in a present incapacity to use it.

But, the mans head is full of his Democracy, which makes him measure us by his principle, and think, that those whom wee admit to full communion, wee admit to exercise the pow­er of the Keyes also (which makes him talk, of taking them along with us to the work of reformation, and admitting them to the management of that matter) and that those that are not ad­mitted to all Ordinances, are quite laid aside, because 'tis so with him.

To his Query, Why should they bee washed at the same laver [Page 79] (at least their children) that may not eat at the same Table? If hee bee ignorant of our answers to it, let him read them in those many Tracts that have them; and if hee bee not ignorant of them, why puts hee the Question, and that without an­swering our arguments for this practice? Some men will ask why? though they have been told why a hundred times, and can say nothing that is worth hearing against it.

His inference from his sorry Reasons, the words of which hee borroweth, from that famous assertour of Reformed Chur­ches, the Lord Du Plessis, is a farther evidence of his weakness, mistakes, and impudence. Our Churches, this man brands eve­ry where as Antichristian and Babylon it self; but not one ar­gument of weight doth hee bring to prove it. Neither an­swers hee the solid arguments of the godly-learned, condemn­ing separation from our Churches, as no true Churches, for a grievous sin; which indeed should have been properly his work (since hee had an itch to write) in regard, hee stands charged by those writings, with this sinne. But this, belike, hee finds too hard a task, and that it is easier to lay on, than to take off charges (and wee must not blame a man for not undertaking what hee cannot perform) and so instead of answering their arguments, sometimes hee wrests their words, and perverts their sence, to make it serve his turn; Sometimes abuseth their expressions for separation from Rome, by pressing them, for the service of his unscriptural separation from reformed Churches, as he shamefully doth here, those of this champion of the reformed Churches.

Did ever Du Plessis think, that his exhortation to separa­tion from Rome, should have been so much polluted and abused, as to bee managed for separation from Reformed Chur­ches? or that the World would have produced a writer so ab­surd, as to account reformed Churches, to bee yet in, and of, and the Babylon it self? How could hee, if hee had any fore­head left him, so much as name that woruhy Champion of the Protestant Churches, when hee exhorts to separation from them? But we shall have a worse carriage of this nature to look upon, at the end of his book.

SECT. VII. Of Mr. P's Injunctions to the Magistrate, and first, concerning Parishes, Parish-Temples, and Patrons.

P. 69. &c. ‘BEE wise O yee Kings, be instructed yee Judges of the earth. Take away Parishes, by an Act of State, away with all those Consecrated places for worship; Away with Patrons, or Lay-founders; Away with Tithes, &c. Away, I say, with all ap­purtenances of a Parish-Church.’

Can this be Mr. P's voyce (I mean not in regard of the imperiousness of it, for there is no ground to doubt it to be his on that account, but) appealing in matters that concern Reli­gion, to the Magistrate, whose power he hath so much decried? Strange, that these worldly Governments, whom hee exhorts men in his preface, not to accept as Law-givers, no not in the Common-wealth, and hopes Christ will in due time deliver us from, should now be applied to by him, for the exercise of their power, and that in matters that concern Religion! What strange liberty is this that he takes, to pul down Magistrates at his pleasure, when they stand in his light, and set them up a­gain to be his Servants, and drive on his designes? But possibly he means those Rulers that Mr. Feak and his party (of which he hath manifested himself to be) would have in place of au­thority; and then his injunctions might have been deferred till their time, which I hope we shall never see. But consider we a little what he doth enjoyn.

‘First, take away Parishes by an Act of State, the Ecclesiasti­calness of them.’ But, no Reason that he hath urged against them hitherto, will warrant it. What says he now for it? ‘Hezekiah brake the brazen Serpent, because the Children of Israel did Idolize it. Josiah demolished the Altar of Bethel, and the high place there.’ Rare arguing! What analogy is there between these things? Are Protestant Parish-congrega­tions idolatrously worshipped? because, whilst Rome was owned in them they were Idolatrous, are they to be demolished now that they renounce it, and own Gods true worship? Are they like the Altar of Bethel, and the High-places, against Divine institution, in place of being, and means of worship? For place, [Page 81] Churches are now confined to no set place, as that of the Jews was then, but may any where be made up of co-habiting pro­fessors of Christianity. For the means of worship, let the Rea­der judge, whether he hath proved our Churches Idolatrous. And what would this Arguer say, I trow, from his instances, against those Protestant Churches, that are not Parishional in France, &c. made up of Professors, whose dwellings are scat­tered in the Popish Parishes, in compasses near to their mee­ting-places? Must they be taken away by an Act of State too, if such a one could be procured there?

Next, our Temples feel his wrath.

‘Away with all those Consecrated places for Worship,P. 70. 71 those holds of Mahuzzim, Daemons, or Saint-Gods, as Mede expounds them; may monuments of Idolatry be better endured than here­tofore? The argument for the demolishing of these is perpetual, and so the precept, Deut. 7.5, 6, 25, 26. the reason why they are suffered, is want of zeal, as is hinted by Master Cotton, Vial the 7. p. 14.’

I fear Mr. P's zeal is as misguided, as that Luke 9.54, 55. want of due consideration, and the power of prejudice, and wrath, doe, it is to be feared, kindle his zeal. For, are our Temples holds of Mahuzzim now? Is any Saint-God, but the holy Trine-une-God, worshipped and owned in them, as their Protector and Defender? How untrue is Mr. P's insinuation of it? Surely, learned Mede is much abused by him (as are most of the Non-congregational Authors, whom he quotes) in being made, from that expression he mentions, to account our Temples holds of Mahuzzim; whereas, he intends it only for the Romish Temples, where Saints are worshipped; distinguish­ing Protestants from Papists, p. 101. True Christians have with David one Mahoz, but apostate Christians have their many Mahuzzims; and how much he was for the holiness of our Churches, as places not Idolatrous and prophane, his tract bearing that name, with that of the reverence of Gods house, and several other places in his works, doe sufficiently demonstrate, to shame Mr. P. if he be not perfrictae frontis. But sayes Mr. P. They are monuments of Idolatry, and may they be better endu­red than heretofore? Here he reasons strangely; for, if be­cause they were heretofore abused to Idolatry, they may not be used now without Idolatry, but must be pulled down: then [Page 82] the Temple should have been destroyed, and not used for the performing of the worship of God in it by Josiah, because Manasseh his father had set up Idolatrous Altars for all the Host of Heaven, and a carved Image in it, 2 Chron. 33.4, 5, 7. but he neither pulls down, nor scrupleth worshipping in the Tem­ple, when he had purged it, which yet he should have done by Mr. P's doctrine; because his father had made it a monument of Idolatry.

In times near the Primitive, Christians scrupled not to use for Christian worship, Temples before used for the worship of Pagan gods, when they came to be in their power; neither, I beleeve, would the Apostle Paul, who preached upon Mars­hil, have scrupled to have used them for the worship of God, if they had been in the hands of Christians in his time. About the text in Deut. (however confidently he build his Temple-demolishing doctrine upon it) he is much deceived; and hath need to be taught, that the reason of those precepts, for the destroying of the Canaanites places and means of worship, and not using them in Gods service, was, that God had purposed and appointed, that there should be but one only place, in the whole Land of Israel, to which they were to bring their gifts, offerings, and sacrifices, as the Levitical Law required; which is expresly told us, Deut. 12.1. to 8. And we find, that that precept, Deut. 7. did not bind them to demolish, and reject from being used in Gods service, whatsoever was abused to undue worship. The Censers of the two hundred and fifty, that should not have offered incense, were made broad plates for the cover­ing of the Altar, Numb. 16.39. and the Censers that Nadab and Abihu put strange fire in, were not, that we read of, cast away, and made no use of in the Tabernacle, and therefore probably Eleazar, and Ithamar, that succeeded, used them. Our Temples, many of them had a being before the Popish re­ligion prevailed in our Land, and some of them have been built since it was removed, and had they been all erected du­ring the prevalency of that religion, yet their use being chan­ged, to the worshipping and religious honouring of God alone, they are no more holds of Mahuzzim, but Temples of Christ. As to Mr. Cottons opinion, which he mentions, it is built upon exceeding slender grounds. He, p. 9. & 14. doth expound, Revel. 16.20. thus. By Islands are meant Church-yards, and [Page 83] ther grounds consecrated by Popish devotions; by Mountains, Ca­thedral Churches, and all those high places that over-top the peo­ple of God. Hence he concludes, when the zeal of God lifts up the hearts of his people, they will not endure a Consecrated place in the world. With reverence to Mr. Cottons piety and learning, let the judicious Reader judge, whether any thing may not bee said and inferred, at this rate of interpreting. Never did any man in the Christian Church so interpret this text; neither can it in any reason be thought to be the sense of the Holy Ghost; but rather, that Islands and Mountaines are put for places of strength, and the powers in them, wherein Rome relies, and which in the overthrow of Babylon, though she look for help from them, are not able to afford it her, but fall, as many as adhere to her, under ruin themselves; which is, that the ge­nerality of the best Interpreters, understand by it.

But would you think, that Mr. P. that inveighs thus against our Temples, should use them himself? He tells us plainly, that he not only hath done, and doth, but also hints that hee in­tends to continue so to doe; and that with the help of this pret­ty distinction.

‘I confess, were it not to cry out against the Altar at Bethel, P. 71, 72, & 81. and gain an advantage of speaking, that otherwise I cannot have, after the example of the Churches meeting in Solomons Porch, after the Temple was abolished, Act. 5.12. I would never more preach, or perform any holy duty in them. I could not meet with the Parish, were it not that I come as a Prophet from Judah to Bethel to them, to cry out against the Altar there; or upon oc­casion of the Churches meeting, not theirs primarily.’

If he comes as a Prophet, yet will he say, he is so extraordi­nary a Prophet, as to have a dispensation, to doe evil that good may come of it, which the great Apostle durst not doe, Rom. 3.8? Surely his practice speaks it in effect, supposing that he belee­veth that to be true, which he hath delivered, that our Temples are high places, and that it is equally sin to use them, at it was to use these. Either he must recant what he hath said, or he must acknowledge that he doth evil (to him evil) that good may come of it. If this confident accuser charge us, who are not convinced of the Antichristianism of our Temples, of living in a sinful practice, for using them: how deeply may he be charged for using them, who accounts them holds of Daemons, Idolatrous [Page 84] high places, not to be endured by any zealous person, such as God expresly forbids men to have to doe with? But let us consider his pretences, for the warrantableness of this pra­ctice, notwithstanding his Principle; what weight are they of? even none.

1 He comes as a Prophet from Judah to Bethel, to cry out a­gainst the Altar there. But surely, (besides that he can never shew such a Commission, for his inveighing against our Tem­ples, as that Prophet had, to declare against the Idolatrous Altar at Bethel, as may be easily concluded from what hath been said) it is plain, that he useth not our Temples alwayes on this account, but commonly, for the performing of Divine servi­ces to God, with the people that are with him, in the use of all Ordinances; which I am certain, that Prophet would not have done at the Altar of Bethel. So that, this is but a meer empty pretence.

2 He doth it to gain an advantage to cry out against the Altar, &c. that otherwise hee cannot have, after the example of the Church, Act. 5. But, (besides, as I have said, that this is not commonly his work, when he appears in our Temples, but to use ordinarily Gods Ordinances with the people there, which the Prophet would not have done at the Altar of Bethel, and which we read not that the Apostles did in Solomons Porch, though if they had, the case had been farre different from that in hand) Can he not cry out against the Altar, &c. elsewhere, and that with more probable advantage? Would it not better suit with Mr. P's Principles, to ascend to the top of the Market-place, or upon some Scaffold erected on purpose, and there to cry out against our Temples? And I dare say, in so doing, hee shall have more hearers than he can expect in a Temple.

3. He meets with the Parish in the Temple, upon the account of the Churches meeting there, not theirs primarily. But, cannot his Church meet elsewhere? Surely, after all his drawing away of the Members of our Churches, his company is not so bigge, but that some room of theirs may contain them, as it doth when they list; and, one would think, this Prophet should in­struct and lead his flock better, than to carry them to, and suffer them to meet and worship God, in an Idolatrous place, as unwarrantable to be used, in his judgement, as the high-places, and the Altar of Bethel in Israels time. 'Tis a sad thing, that [Page 85] this Prophet should be so like that other old Prophet, mentioned, 1 King. 13.18, 19, &c. he in his practice leads his people to use our Temples; and yet in his doctrin hee condemns the use of them, as very sinful, Idolatrous, and not to be practised by any; and thereby condemns, both those who are led by him into this practice, and himself much more, who is found, and leads others into it, contrary to his principles, convictions, and doctrin. Is it not to be feared, that in this he is not a true Prophet of the Lord? and that his voyce in this Book is no more from Heaven, than the Message of that old Prophet was from an Angel? But yet, attend we his third injunction.

‘Away with Patrons, or Lay-founders, that usurp the Prero­gative of Christ, they will found Churches;P. 72. [...] not only build a Synagogue, but appoint the Church, and the Minister. Is not Christ Jesus the builder of the house? Durst Paul and Barna­bas exercise such tyranny, as to impose a Minister on the peo­ple? Acts 14.23.’

Certainly, Mr. P. invents a crime against Patrons, especially those of our days. Doe they appoint the Congregations of Pro­fessors? surely he dreams; they only present Ministers to Congregations already formed; and if those Ministers can bee proved by any in those Congregations, to be unfit to be over them in the Lord, there is now, and hath commonly been, by publick appointment, a way to keep them out, and make the presentation null; but if they have no valid exception against them, what harm is there done by the Patrons presenting? I shall not here speak to Patrons right; But I think, their using of that priviledge of nominating Ministers to places (which was bestowed upon them at first, by the favour of Princes, that men might be thereby encouraged to so good a work, as buil­ding Temples, and endowing them with means, to maintain Ministers to preach there, for the edification of Souls) cannot truly be termed, an usurping of the Prerogative of Christ, nor an exercising if tyranny over the people. Ministers may have Christs mission, either wholly, or inchoatively by fitness, and a true desire of edifying Souls in the Ministery, though they bee presented by Patrons; yea, Patrons present them, upon the account that they apprehend them to have Christs mission; and people have sufficient means to invalidate the Presentati­on (especially among us) in case they can evidence them to [Page 86] bee unfit; and to procure them to bee ejected, after admission, in case they can prove them insufficient, ignorant, or scandalous. Those that are presented, must bring a sufficient Testimonial of their good conversation; They must undergo a tryal, in relati­on to their abilities; and it any Objection of weight, is laid in by the people against them, they cannot injoy the benefit of their presentation, unlesse that bee removed; Also, it is no hard matter, for prudent godly people, to prevail with Patrons, to present whom themselves shall pitch upon.

All which things considered, as I cannot look on their pre­senting as an exercising of Tyranny over the people: So I think, that places are better provided for this way, considering the condition of our Churches, than if they had the full power of nominating, chusing, and admitting their Ministers.

But Mr. P. would have done well, since hee accounts the presentations of Patrons such abominations, to have instructed, and reproved,Mr. L. one of his chief members, who, not long ago, sin­ned against his Antipatronical doctrin. For, enquiring what course hee should take, to bee settled in the Living where hee was, hee in whose right hee held it being deceased; and being answered by mee, that hee must have recourse to the Patron: Though hee then much inveighed against Patrons, and decla­red that hee would have no recourse to him, nor use him in this matter; yet hee soon after, addressed himself to him, and pro­cured himself to bee presented by him. Quid non mortalia pecto­ra cogis, Auri sacra fames?

The Text, Act. 14.23. whence Mr. P. queries, Durst Paul and Barnabas impose a Minister on the people? is mistaken by him; but for once, he doth not wrong the Presbyterian Author he quotes,p. 72, 73 (which is a rare vertue with him) about the import of the word [...]. For it is true, that Reverend Cal­vin, Beza, and some others, say that Paul and Barnabas, are by this word to be deemed, to have put the Election of the Elders, to the suffrages of all in the Churches. But others, not a few, nor mean, hold, that as they were Elders themselves, and more than Elders, so they chose and ordained Elders for the Chur­ches, by vertue of their Office, as best able to appoint to them therein; and that, [...], referres not to the peoples chusing, by lifting up of hands, but to the act of Paul and Barnabas, who by imposition of hands, ordained them El­ders. [Page 87] Scriptores Ecclesiastici (saith Marlorat) [...] u­surpant, pro solemni Ordination is ritu, qui in Scripturis vocatur manuum impositio.

And indeed, by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery, were Ministers put into office, 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. And as yet, I have not seen one example of weight produced from Scripture, of a Minister, Pastor, or Elder, chosen by the peo­ple, much lesse thereby constituted a Minister. That Text, Act. 1.21. &c. reacheth not the case; for the Apostleship is allotted to Matthias, not by the choice of the Disciples, but by divine decision; and if the choice had been by the Disciples, yet they were not all the Beleevers in Jerusalem, but onely the one hundred and twenty, who were all Ministers, as hath been before evinced. Act. 6, 1. to 6. concludes nothing in the case in hand neither; for, probable it is, as hath been shewed, that the Deacons were not chosen by the multitude of the Disciples at Jerusalem, but by the Presbytery; and if they were chosen by the people, it makes nothing here, for it speaks not ad idem. There is a wide difference, between a Deacon and a Pastor; though it were left to people to chuse their own Deacons, yet it cannot hence bee concluded, that de jure divino, people have power to chuse their own Ministers. Let Mr. P. consider, what the Author, whom he elsewhere so unhappily leans upon, saies to this, n. Mr. Bains in a place already quoted. If any (saies hee) fail in any Office, Diocesan Tri­al. p. 84. Conc. 4. the Church hath not power of supply­ing that, but a Ministery of calling one, whom Christ hath de­scribed, that from Christ hee may have power of Office given him, in the place vacant.

‘Let the world, as well as the Church,p. 74 bee supplyed with Mi­nisters according to Christ's institution.’ But then, say I, they must not bee supplied with such as your self, gifted brethren, unordained; for these are not Compleat Ministers, according to Christs institution, of which more afterwards; And you have given no solid reason, why presented Ministers, that are tryed, approved of, ordained, and sent to Congregations, to administer Christs Ordinances, should not bee, in your ac­count, Ministers according to Christs institution.

‘That which is stuck at, is the rights and properties of Patrons; the taking away these, is looked upon as a peece of injustice. Re­member Pharaoh King of Egypt, and Sihon King of Hesh­bon, [Page 88] how their hearts were hardened, by abuse of righteous prin­ciples, urging them against Gods command.’ Mr. P. hath not yet produced a Command of God, against Patrons properties; And 'tis a mystery to mee, how Pharaoh can bee said, to have stuck to righteous principles, in oppressing so grievously the Israelites, by whose means hee and his land had been sa­ved from famine; and refusing to let those injoy their liberty, by whom hee and his land injoyed life and freedome. Mr. P. hath a strange art in reasoning, if hee can make it out, that Pharaoh acted towards the Israelites as hee did, from righteous principles.

‘I am sorry for men in these daies, that make it a ground to break up Parliaments,p. 75. and make Ordinances to preserve the right of Patrons, &c.’

Neither was that Parliament, which Mr. P. intends, broken up properly, by any power but their own; Nor was the reason of their dissolution, either wholly or chiefly, the preserving of the rights and properties of Patrons. But the Committee having presented to this Parliament these proposals, 1 That Commissioners bee sent down into the Counties, and enabled to eject scandalous and unable Ministers, and settle able Ministers in void places; 2 That such as are, or shall bee approved for publick Preachers of the Gospel, shall have, and injoy such maintenance as is already settled by Law; 3 That upon hearing and considering what hath been offered to the Committee, touching propriety of Tythes, of Incumbents, Rectors, Possessors of Donatives, or ap­propriate Tythes; It is the opinion of the Committee, that the said persons, have a Legal propriety in Tythes: Instead of concur­ring with the Honourable Committee, a Party in this Parlia­ment resolve, 1 To put out of Office all the Ministers in the Land. 2 To abolish the maintenance of Ministers by Tythes, no other maintenance being provided in the stead thereof. 3 That no Ministers should have been capable of being admitted to exercise their Ministery, that would not have renounced their former call to the Ministery, and taken up a new call from the People.

Hereupon, the Major part, with the Speaker, resign up their power into his Excellencies hands, whence they had it; fore­seeing, that confusion, and much evil would have ensued upon the execution of such Counsels.

Mr. P. would, it seems, have rejoyced to have seen them [Page 89] executed; But not onely Presbyterians, but also Independents, that are not of his form, blesse that hand of providence, that disappointed them. Sad would that day have been to Eng­land, that should have brought forth the fruits of them.

His bitter insinuation, that, ‘Patrons presenting,p. 75. doth oblige Ministers to daub with untempered mortar, and sew pillows un­der their elbows;’ is very uncharitable, and unreasonable.

Godly Ministers will bee rather ingaged, by being presen­ted, to labour to edify the souls of Patrons. And were Minist­ers chosen by the people, and cast off by them when they please, as Mr. P. would have it; they would lye thereby, under a far greater temptation, to humour the people in their lusts; Since among them they live, and with them they have continu­ally to do: Whereas Patrons, most of them, live not in the places to which they present; and have no power to put out, whom they have once presented. So that, the power which hee claims for the people, is far more likely to produce that evil, than is the power of Patrons; and instances might bee given that it hath done so. But I forbear recriminating.

SECT. 8. Of Tythes.

MR. P's. fourth injunction to the Magistrate, is concerning Tythes.

‘Away with Tythes, that Old-Testament maintenance, plainly distinguished from the New-Testament maintenance, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. 'Tis plain hee argues a Simili, and like is not the same, Gospel maintenance, differs from Law maintenance, in the very kinde. Tythes, are a legal, Jewish, Popish way of maintenance. Either Tythes are paid by the light of nature, or Moral com­mand, or else by a Ceremonial precept; But not by either of the two former; The instances of Abrahams, and Jacobs paring them, before the Law, are not sufficient; for Circumcision, and Sacrifices, were then, and yet part of the Ceremonial [...]aw: and, the institution of our Saviour, Luke 10.7. urged 1 C [...]r. 9.14. and explained, Gal. 6.6. will not stand with Tythes; These are out of the seed of the land, the fruit of the Trees; or the herd, or the flock; the Gospel-maintenance is raised out of all good [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90] things. Therefore, Tythes belong to the Ceremonial Law, which to practise, is to dig Christ out of his grave, and a Cha­racter of Antichrist. Neither will it avail, for any to say, that they take them not as Tythes, for the Corinthians could not be so excused, as to their eating things sacrificed to Idols, &c.’

Mr. P. knoweth, or might know, that there are several pleas for Tythes, as the Ministers maintenance; The Power and Laws of the Magistrate, The right of Donation, and The Di­vine Right. And therefore, since hee thought fit, to give a rea­son of his excommunicatory sentence against them, with relati­on to the last of those pleas, hee should have done it, in relati­on to the rest also. Else, though it shall happen, that his strong arguing may cause men to quit them with one hand, on the last account; yet the other pleas, being not impugned by him in particular, they may hold them with the other hand, on their account; and so, his away with Tythes, may lose its labour. Two Cords may hold them, though the edge of his arguing, should bee so keen, as to cut the other.

1 The Magistrates Power, and Authority, is generally ac­knowledged, to have been given them by God, in relation to the good of the Church; and cannot fairly bee denied, to ex­tend it self, by his appointment, to the Teachers, as well as to the taught in it. Those must live, and bee maintained, as well as these; the text hee quotes, evinceth this, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. and Magistrates are to take care, that what God hath ap­pointed, may bee performed; how are they else, Ministers of God, for good, without exception or restriction? Now the even so, in this Text (leaving his apprehension, of the farther sense of it, to bee considered under the last plea) implies clearly, that a set, determinate, and sufficient maintenance, is to bee assigned, and paid to the Ministers of Christ, and establish­ed for them (for such a one there was injoyed, by the Mini­sters of holy things, under the Law) and surely, the effecting of this, falls under the Christian Magistrates care, and is within the verge of his power. But now, certainly, there is no reason, why the Magistrate may not appoint, as well a tenth, as a ninth, or an eleventh, to bee the Ministers maintenance; And having so fair a precedent before them, as the determinate proportion, once allotted by God to his Ministers, n. a Tenth; and no other mentioned in Scripture: No reason can bee gi­ven [Page 91] (supposing them not to consider that allotment as binding now) why they should not pitch upon this, rather than any other. The equity of that proportion, doth undoubtedly still remain; it is the proportion which the wisdome of God chose, and hee hath no where forbidden them to pitch upon that proportion, or pointed out any other; therefore, that proportion they may best pitch upon, and establish to bee the Ministers maintenance. This proportion, Christian Magistrates, and ours in particular, have pitched upon, and established by Laws to be the Ministers main­tenance; and that out of the increase of the land, which might ea­sily be proved, to be the most fit, certain Maintenance, the most suitable, to al incident conditions of the land, that can be found.

And why, upon this account, may not Tythes bee appoin­ted and maintained by the Magistrates, required by the Mini­sters, and payed by the People? What Law of God, do those, or these, sin against herein? Suppose the determinate propor­tion, and way of maintenance, not expressed and determined by God, now in New-Testament-daies, but onely that there should bee a fit Maintenance; Doth not the determining of the way and proportion of maintenance, belong to the Magi­strate? And is this way and proportion Jewish, when they pitch not upon it on the Jewish account, as any way a part of, or subservient to the Ceremonial Law? Or is it oppressive, and unreasonable (as some complain) seeing it is the equitable way, which the wisdome of God once appointed, for his Ministers maintenance? Is not here a sufficient bottome, for any mans spirit to rest upon, in relation to Tythes? But if this were not enough,

2 None can deny, that men may give away, and perpetually bequeath to others, the tenth part of the profits of their goods, lands, and inheritances. If any man of Mr. P's. Congregati­on, should bequeath to him and his Successours, the future Pastors of that Congregation, the tenth part of his own pro­per revenues for ever; might not hee, and his Successors law­fully claim and injoy it? would not their title bee good to it? Now thus it is, in the case of Ministers claiming, and taking Tythes in England; as is sufficiently known, to any that know any thing to purpose, in this matter. The first Monarchs of this Nation, when all the Lands in England were their Demesn, demised the Tenth of all the profits of them, to the Ministers [Page 92] of holy things. I shall here transcribe something of what is unquestionably recorded about it.

Mr. Treleyny of Tythes, p. 13 &c. Tythes are legally the Ministers own, not given to him by the Subject, as is now pretended, but paid unto him, as a rent-charge laid upon the land; and that before the subject, either Lord, or Tenant, had any thing to do in the Land at all. It appeareth (saith Sir Edward Coke) by the Laws and Ordinances of ancient Kings, and especially of King Alfred, that the first King of this Realm, had all the Lands of England in Demesne. And at this time it was, when all the lands of England were the Kings Demesne, that Ethelwolph, the second Monarch of the Saxon race (his Father Egbert being the first which brought the former Heptarchie under one sole Prince) conferred the Tythes, of all the Kingdome, upon the Church, by his Royal Charter. King Ethelwolph (saith Ingulph) with the consent of his Pre­lates and Princes, which ruled in England under him, in their several Provinces, did first inrich the Church of England, with the Tythes of all his Lands and Goods, by his Charter Royal. Hee gave (saith Ethelward) the Tythe of his possessions, for the Lords own portion, and ordered it to bee so in all parts of the Kingdome. Hee discharged (saith Florence of Worcester) the tenth part of his Realm, of all tributes and services due unto the Crown, and by his perpetual Charter, offered it to the three-one God. The Char­ter makes it evident, that the King did not onely give, de facto, the Tythe, or tenth part of his whole Realm, to the use of the Cler­gy, but that hee had a right, and a power to do it; as being, not onely the Lord Paramount, but the Proprietary of the whole Lands; The Lords and great men of the Realm, not having then a property, or estates of permanency, but as accomptants to the King, whose the whole Land was. And this appears yet further, by a Law of King Athelstanes, made in the year 930. about which time not onely the Prelates of the Church, as formerly, but the great men of the Realm, began to be settled in estates of permanen­cy, and to claim a property in those Lands which they held of the Crown, and claiming so, begun it seems, to make bold to subduct their Tithes. For remedy whereof, the King made this Law, commanding all his Ministers, throughout the Kingdome, that in the first place, they should pay the Tythes of his own estate (which hee held in his own hands, and had not estated out to his Lords and Barons) and that the Bishops did the like of what they held in [Page 93] right of their Churches, and his Nobles and Officers of that which they held in property, as their own possessions, or inheritance. So then, the Land being charged thus with the paiment of Tythes, came with this clog unto the Lords, and great men of the Realm, and hath been so transmitted, and passed over, from one hand to a­nother, until it came to the possession of the present owners; who, whatsoever right they have to the other nine parts, either of Fee-simple, Lease, or Copy, have certainly none at all in the Tythe or tenth, which is no more theirs, or to be so thought of, than the o­ther nine parts are the Clergies. For in whatsoever tenure they hold their Lands, they purchased them, on this tacit condition, that besides the Rents and Services they pay to the Lord, they are to pay to the Clergy, or those who succeed in their right, a tenth of all the fruits of the earth, and of the fruits of their Cattel, and all Creatures tytheable.

And, by how many Acts of Parliament, Tithes have been confirmed to the Clergy on this account, in the reigns of seve­ral of our Princes, unto this day; appears fully in the Treati­ses of learned Lawyers, as also what care hath been taken, for the true paiment of them.

These things considered, it is evident, that by Donation, the Ministery of England hath as good a civil right to the Tithes, as any other persons have to the other nine parts possessed by them. And I fear therefore, that many of those who are now so hot for the abolishing of Tithes, would soon labour, if they had power in their hands, to extinguish Landlords Rents also.

Thus, Tithes are made over and held, may be claimed, and ought to be paid, on the account of the Magistrates lawful ap­pointment, determination, and Laws, and the right of ancient Donation in England. And these two grounds, well-considered, are sufficient to satisfie any man, that there is no need to take them away, though the Divine right of them should not bee made good. Sufficeth, there is a firm civil right for them. But yet, because Mr. P. is so confident, and peremptory, in denying and opposing the Divine right of Tithes (though, as his man­ner is, he answers not the many and weighty arguments, urged by no mean Divines, and Masters of reason for it) I shall view what hee saith to that plea. Consider wee then, that,

3 Some plead for Tithes, upon the account of Divine right; [Page 94] alledging, that this way of Ministers maintenance, by Tithes, was appointed by God before the Law, and under the Law, and is not repealed, or any other substituted in its room, by the Gospel. And that therefore, Tythes are due by a Moral, and perpetually binding Law of God.

What says Mr. P. to this? It is an Old-Testament mainte­nance. Be it so, this is that is pleaded. The older the better, as to evidence, if it be not repealed. The Sabbath is an Old-Testa­ment Ordinance, and hath no New-Testament Law, exprest, to establish it; will he therefore say, away with the Sabbath? What saith he to the repeal of Tythe-maintenance? It seems to me, plainly distinguished, from the New-Testament maintenance, in that, 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Plainly! Every man hath not so good eyes as Mr. P. I see not the least appearance of any such thing, in that text. 'Tis well he says, to me plainly; for I dare engage, upon my little reading, that no Expositor of note, did ever see any such thing, in this Scripture, much less see it plainly. Some of them have thought, they have seen the contrary to this no­tion in it, and have pleaded from the SO, for the Divine right of Tythes: but none that I know of, did ever behold the maintenances plainly, or indeed at all, distinguished in it. This sharpness of sight, Mr. P. shall carry away the glory of. Well, but he will make us see it. Behold we then. 'Tis plain, (says he) he argues a Simili, from the like, and like is not the same. Now, it is plain to me, that Mr. P. understands not the text, and that he abuseth Logick; though not out of ill will to it, I suppose. The Logick is too too bad, even for a Midsummer Bachelaur. For the axiome, as used by him, hath a gross fallacy in it, A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. It is true, that like is not, cannot be, the same Numerically, but it may be the same Specifically, and is; and, if Mr. P. had been better ac­quainted with Aristotle, hee might have known so much. [...]. [...] 10. E [...]. c. 3. Like things are not the same simply, but they are the same as to species, or kind.

Suppose then, the Apostle to argue from the like, when hee argues for a Gospel-maintenance, from the consideration of the maintenance had under the Law; doth it follow, he must mean another kind of maintenance, by that which he pleads for? Are not Tythes paid under the Law, and Tythes paid under [Page 95] the Gospel, alike, as Tythes paid? and yet, are not they the same, as they are one kind of maintenance? May not Mr. P's Successor in his Church, have such a maintenance as hee hath, a maintenance like his, and yet the same kind of main­tenance?

But, if Mr. P's Logick were as good as it is bad, yet he hath no footing in the Text for his arguing, hee plainly misunder­stands it. For the context, compared with the text, evinceth, that the Apostles aim and scope is not to compare the mainte­nances as to their peculiar kind, but to prove that mainte­nance is due to Gospel Ministers for their work, as well as it was to legal Ministers for theirs. A maintenance these had, whereby they did live, and had a subsistence suitable to their condition, as Ministers of holy things; and a maintenance thus sufficient, whereby they may live as Gospel Ministers, he argues those ought to have, by the Lords Ordinance. He that ordained, that Legal Ministers should have a sufficient and honourable maintenance, hath also, yea and therein, ordained that Gospel Ministers should have such a maintenance. Gods Ordinance in this respect reacheth the one as well as the other, and is accordingly applied by the Apostle, to all Ministers of holy things as one in this thing, vers. 10. For our sakes no doubt this is written, that is, for the sakes of all Ministers of holy things. God would have them subsist, by a sufficient and ho­nourable maintenance. Thus this plain text is plainly nothing to his purpose.

But, he hath more than one string to his bow. Next comes an Argument, that he thinks will doe the deed. The summe of it is this. Tythes are paid, neither by the light of Nature, nor by a Moral command; for the instances of Abrahams and Ja­cobs paying Tythes will not evidence so much; for Circumcision was of the Fathers, and yet obliged to keep the whole Law; and Sacrifices were as old as Cain and Abel, yet part of the Ceremo­nial Law. Again, no Gospel-Law is inconsistent with a Natural or Moral Law; but the institution of our Saviour for maintenance, explained Gal. 6.6. will not stand with Tythes. Therefore they are paid by a Ceremonial precept, and belong to the Ceremonial Law, which to practise is to digge Christ out of his Grave, and a character of Antichrist.

Strange confidence this, to build so peremptorily, so deep, so [Page 96] censuring a conclusion, on such slenderly-proved premises. Two Reasons he hath here, why Tythes are not paid by a Moral command, which pretend to overthrow two of those, whereby they that are for the Divine right of them, assert that they de­pend upon a Moral command.

1 The instances of Abraham and Jacob will not serve the turn for it. And why I pray? We know, the Priesthood to which Abraham paid was not Ceremonial, and no Scripture tells us, his payment was a branch of the Ceremonial Law. The portion due to Melchisedecks Priesthood, is due to the Priesthood of Christ, it being after the order of his; and so to Gospel Ministers, as Christs servants. If therefore Abraham in duty paid Tythes be­fore the Law, to Melchisedecks Priesthood, are they not now to be paid, to the Priesthood of Christ, and received by his Mi­nisters? No, saith Mr. P. for Circumcision and Sacrifices were before the Law, and yet did belong to the Ceremonial Law, and are abolished. What a wonderful confutation is this? For, (be­sides that hee saith nothing, to what is commonly alledged concerning Melchisedecks Priesthood, when that instance is urged) doth it follow, that because Circumcision and Sacrifices, that were before and under the Law, are abolished, that there­fore Tythes, that were so, are abolished also? certainly by no Logick but Mr. P's. For the two former we have express Scrip­tures, declaring that they are abolished, but not so for the latter. It is not every thing that was appointed before the Law, and continued under the Law, and was not explicitely recommanded by the Gospel, that is abolished (for so the Sab­bath it self should be abolished) but, what the declared will of God hath abolished. Therefore Mr. P. hath but confirmed the opposite argument. Abraham paid Tythes by command; Mr. P. denies it not. That command is not expresly and explicitely repealed, as are those for Circumcision and Sacrifices; Mr. P. doth not shew, or say that it is. What hinders then, but that it should be looked upon as a Moral and perpetually binding command? It must be his second Reason, if any thing, for his first says, it is not in me.

2 The Assumption (says he) is manifest, because no Law ap­pointed in the Gospel, is inconsistent with a Natural or Moral Law of God: But the institution of our Saviour, explained Gal. 6.6. will not stand with Tythes; these are out of the seed of the [Page 97] land, the first fruit of the trees, and the herd, or flock; The Gos­pel-maintenance, is raised out of all good things, that the person taught hath. Tythes were paid, the first tenth to the Levites, and they paid the tenth of the tenth to the Priests, &c.

This Reason is Mr. Hookers, and (saving the reverence due to so worthy a man) may justly bee said, to have no co­gency at all in it. Tythes may very well consist with Christs institution, for Ministers maintenance, as explained, Gal. 6.6. For 1 Suppose this expression of the Apostle, in all good things, bee as comprehensive, as Mr. Hooker would have it: Yet, it ap­pears not, but that under the Law Tythes were so paid. No places in the Law of Moses, that mention Predial Tythes, do restrain the payment to them, excluding personal Tythes. The Law mentions the chief, and comprehends under them the rest; as may appear, by considering, that neither grass, nor hony, nor wax, nor several other things, that might bee men­tioned, are referrible to any of the mentioned expressions, being neither of the seed of the Land, nor the fruit of Trees, nor of the herd, or flock, which yet, no man doubts, I suppose, but were tithed. Therefore, Mr. Hooker, could not on sufficient ground say, that the Tythes under the law, were not of all good things, even in his sense. Nay, there is as express a place, to prove that Tythes under the Law, were paid of all good things, as this Gal. 6. is for the communicating maintenance out of them, under the Gospel, which is Luke 18.12. I give Tythes (saies the Pharisee) of all that I possesse. Is not, all that I pos­sess, as fully expressive, as, all good things? 2 May not Gal. 6. mean suitably to the Law? In all good things, that is, in all things communicable, and whereof a portion was to bee com­municated to Ministers, under the Law. If it must bee un­derstood in a limitted sense (as who can doubt but it must, in re­lation to many particulars) where shall wee have a rule to li­mit it, and bound it, but the practice under the Law?

3 What ever becomes of the Tythe under the Law, wee are sure, wee can match this expression, in Gal. 6. with those, whereby Abraham's and Jacob's paying of Tythes, before the Law (which is firstly to bee heeded in this businesse) is set forth.

Of Abraham, it is said, Gen. 14.20. Hee gave him Tithes of ALL, spoiles and all, Heb. 7.4. And saies Jacob, Gen. 28.22. [Page 98] Of ALL that thou shalt give mee, I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

Where lies the Reason now, why the Institution of Christ for Ministers maintenance, should not stand with Tythes? That requireth, men should communicate to Ministers, in all good things, and herein it is answerable to the Law of Tythes, for Abraham before the Law, gave tythes to Melchisedeck of all, and Jacob Tythes to God of all, and persons under the Law (as appears by that of the Pharisee) gave tithes of all that they pos­sessed; and these, cannot but bee deemed, to have acted therein according to Gods Ordinance.

As for the other branch of this second reason, that the first tenth was under the Law to the Levite, &c. it speaks nothing at all, for the inconsistency of Tythes with Christs institution. For, that order and distinction is acknowledged on all hands, to have been Ceremonial, and adventitious to the nature of the main­tenance. Wee must strip the Ordinance of the Sabbath it self, of morality, if wee will have no appointment moral, that was attended, under the Law, with something Cere­monial.

Thus, it may clearly appear, to the considerate Reader, that as yet Mr. P. hath not made his assumption manifest, but rather his weaknesse; neither of his Reasons holding good. And therefore, consequently, his flourishing conclusion makes but a vainshew. Hee hath no way proved, that Tythes are paid by a Ceremonial Precept, and belong to the Ceremonial Law. And withall, hee hath avoided, or omitted, one great part of his task under such an attempt; n. to prove that, and shew how, Tythes 1 were a shadow of Christ, or grace to come by Christ here; in the Law for them, nature of them, proporti­on in them; 2 Analogically represented heavenly things; which are porperties, that enter into the definition of Legal Levitical ceremonies, from Scripture; and which, I am assured, Mr. P. will never bee able to make out concerning Tithes.

But yet, poor man, hee seems to think, hee hath done such wonders, in confuting Tithes, that now, if any dare refuse to let them go, yet they will not have, hee thinks, the face to take them as, and under the notion of Tythes. And therefore follows, Neither will it avail, for any to say, that they take them not as Tythes; for the Corinthians could not bee so excused, as to [Page 99] their eating things sacrificed to Idols, &c. Certainly, there is no cause to fear, from any thing that hee hath said, that men, that have duely considered the thing, should betake them­selves to that refuge; or to think, they should judge the case of eating things offered to Idols, in the Idols Temple, and the ta­king of Tythes alike. Alas! what unequal yoaking of things is here?

Nay but, Tithes are Popish, and were sacrificed to Idols, ei­ther directly, or interpretatively by Papists. Not Popish sure, in their institution; nor since Christ, owned at first, as the Mi­nisters maintenance, by Papists, or to promote directly, or in­directly, Popery, or Idolatry. Mr. P's reading should have taught him better. Tythes are far Elder than Popery, even in the Christian Church. And however Papists have abused, ei­ther Tythes, or Temples, there ariseth hence, no more neces­sity to forsake them, now that those abuses are renounced, and expelled; than there did to Israel, to abolish their Tythes or Temple, because they were used during the prevalency of I­dolatry in that nation, to maintain it.

But withall, I must minde Mr. P. that as to the Divine right of Tythes, the Papists shake hands with him, for they general­ly disown it, and dispute against it.

Now wee are reminded of his injunctions hitherto with a caution.

‘Away, I say, with all appurtenances of a Parish Church.p. 82 Let us not desire the silver and gold of the Idol, lest wee bee snared, and become an abomination like it, and accursed like it.’

Mr. P. doth well to comprehend himself, and those that are with him in his admonition to avoid that, which hee deems to be a curse. But he would do better, since his judgement is thus, if he did more labour to reform at home, what he doth so high­ly declaim against in others. One lately of his Church, though hee weakly renounced his Ordination, yet to his end, would not quit his Tythes. Others of the members of his Church, are Parish-Preachers, and receivers of Tythes. May it not now be queried, upon Mr. P's principles, whether his Church bee come out of Babylon, when such brats of Babylon, as hee ac­counts Parish-Ministers, and receivers of Tythes to bee, are the main Pillars of it, and are suffered in it, though they live in a practice directly contrary to their Pastors Doctrin? Or, [Page 100] is it Antichristian in all others, to receive Tythes, but not in the Members of Mr. P's Society?

But Reader, is it not more strange than this, and matter of wonder, that Mr. POST LETHWAIT himself, who doth so highly inveigh against Tythes, shovld defile his fingers with the silver and gold of the IDOL, that accursed thing in his judge­ment? and give an acquittance for Tythes, by the name of TITHES, under his own hand, and that Since hee hath ap­peared in print, in his Pamphlet against Tythes? I can assure thee, it is not more strange than true. Judge now, what heed is to bee given to his declamations against us, who take tithes, which wee judge wee may lawfully receive; whenas, hee can allow himself to take them, who professedly condemns them, and accounts them Antichristian.

I shall presume, to give Mr. P. some advice hereupon, and so close this Section. 1 I beseech him, to make sure, of an actual particular repentance, from that sin against his judge­ment. 2 I wish him, to study controverted points more throughly, before hee adventure, to determine of them so peremptorily. 3 I intreat him to consider, that if his judgement bee still the same, concerning Tythes; hee should labour, speedily, to his power, to restore that Tythe-money, hee hath heretofore received. If it bee Babylonish Gold, an accursed thing, gain unjustly gotten, why should it abide in his Tabernacle, to consume both it and him? This hee was minded of, by a Parish-Minister, who breaks bread with him; who told him, that by the Principles of his book, hee was bound to make restitution, of the Tythes, he had at any time received, to the utmost of his estate. I hear his evasion is, hee would make restitution, if he knew to whom. But, doth not hee know, that when the right owners of goods unlawfully gotten, cannot bee discovered, the Poor are the Heirs, Luke 19.8? Herewith, Mr. P. will do well, to think upon that of Austin, Non aufertur peccatum, nisi resti­tuat rab latum.

SECT. IX. Concerning the Commissioners for approbation of publick Preachers.

‘TAke heed, that you set not up Episcopacy again.p. 84, 85. Saints are affraid, what the Commissioners for the trial of Ministers will come to at last. At first, I was pretty well satisfied with the Ordinance for their sitting, save that it is grounded in part, on the defence of Patrons rights and properties. But since, my scru­ples increase. I know no qualification, that is put on the Patrons presentation, but only to take care to preserve his rights and pro­perties. Again, is there not the same kind of Tyranny exercised over the elections of the people, that was formerly? If the Pa­tron and the Commissioners agree, that brings in a Minister into a Parish, in spight of their hearts.’

I am sorry to find, and it sounds very ill towards him, that Mr. P. who is so scrupulous a man, should in relation to Tythes, as we have seen, and the Commissioners trial, as he tells us here, adventure upon practices, that his scruples condemn; and so act against his Conscience. Surely, this no way becomes such a Reformer, and must needs lay a great block, in the way of his endeavoured reclaiming of those, whom hee accounts to bee in Babylon. Though he was in part satisfied concerning the Com­missioners, yet he tells us, he was not satisfied in them, in that the Ordinance for their si [...]ting, is grounded on the defence of Pa­trons rights and properties. Now Patrons, being in Mr. P's ap­prehension, so great an abomination as hee doth express; and Tythes, which by their approving of him, he had power to re­ceive, and did receive, being in his account an accursed thing: It must needs be that he sinned against his Conscience, in ad­dressing himself to them, and in procuring them, to gratifie him, with some of the gold and silver of the Idol. Should our professed Principles, and apparent practices thus jarre, how ill should we hear from Mr. P? Surely, whatever Saints of his way are afraid of, Saints of ours see cause to fear, that he is not a man of such a tender conscience, as he makes shew of.

He fears, the Commissioners will set up Episcopacy again, though none of them are of the Episcopal judgement, and ma­ny [Page 102] of them favour the Congregational way. So he fears, with Mr. Ellis (p. 95.) that Popery rective, will follow upon Presbytery; though the experience of Protestant reformed Churches, that have exercised this Government for above a hundred years to­gether, and are as farre from Popery rective, as at the first, for­bid this fear. But indeed (if men must speak their fears) I fear rather, that those of his rigid way of separation, will bring in Popery again. Rective they may, for Doctrinal they have; it hath already crept in, at the back door of their Democratical Government, and is too frequently found in many Socie­ties of high-flown Sectaries, that have swarmed out of their hives.

But, since Mr. P. is so scrupulo and fear ful, I wonder hee made no scruple, and did not fear (which is a further sad evidence against the tenderness of his Conscience) to charge, most falsly, the Protector and Council, in saying, That there is no qualifica­tion put on the presentation of the Patron, but only care taken, to preserve his rights and properties. For, Mr. P. cannot but know, that the Ordinance takes care, that the person presented by any Patron to a living, should be a meet man to preach the Gos­pel; which to evidence that he is, he must have a Testimonial, under the hands of godly Ministers and others, touching his unblameable life and conversation, from their personal know­ledge of him; which, when the Commissioners have received, they are to make trial of the grace of God in him, of his know­ledge, utterance, ability, and fitness to preach the Gospel. And unless these evidences, concur so sufficiently, that they can ap­prove of him; no Patrons presentation can avail any man; his right and property signifies nothing, as to the instating of such a person in any Living. Mr. P. may therefore consider, whe­ther hee hath not here sinned against that Scripture, Exo­dus 22.28.

It also appears, how unjust his Charge is, of Tyranny exer­cised in this business. It is well known (not to speak now to his fancy, of the necessity of the peoples election, to which, and to presentations, something hath been said, Sect. 7) that Pa­trons are generally easily prevailed with by the People, to pre­sent any fit man they shall desire; and that in case an unfit per­so be presented, people may object against him to the Com­missioners, and obstruct his passing, if they have matter of [Page 103] weight against him; and in case a presented Minister prove in­sufficient, or scandalous, people know how and where to bee freed from him. Unjust therefore is his Charge, and rankly uncharitable is that speech, that if the Patron and Commissio­ners agree, that brings in a Minister in spight of the peoples hearts; As if, whatever reasons the people shew against it, the Com­missioners would doe it right or wrong. I heartily wish, Mr. P. may have grace, to learn more modesty, charity, and truth, than these, and many other passages in his Treatise, manifest him to have. He now concludes his Injunctions thus.

‘I know, the great Objection against what hath been said is, that Ministers will want their certainty. But for all this,p. 83. they that trust in the Lord, will say, cast up, take away the stumbling-block, and that with a great deal of fervour. I have refused li­vings, when I might have had them, and laid them down, when God called for them.’ Vincat veritas, ruat coelum.

What a bitter insinuation is here? that those Ministers, that cast not up their Tythes, and standing, and turn not Feakish In­dependents, as Mr. P. hath done; are persons, that doe not trust in the Lord: and that they are convinced of the unlawfulness of their maintenance and standing, but will not renounce them, for fear of wanting their certainty. How hardly doth Mr. P. judge, of those that are not of his way? But there are some, not only of his way in the main, but also of his Church, who are Parish-Ministers, and receivers of Tythes, and who will not, with Mr. P. cry, Cast up, take away Tythes; unless they be first well assured, of a setled maintenance another way. And will Mr. P. say of these, that they trust not the Lord, and that fear of wanting a certainty, makes them act against their consciences? If so, having persisted in it after admonitions, why communicates he with them? If not, but he judgeth other­wise of them; how is it true which he saith, that those that trust in the Lord will cry, cast up.

What Livings Mr. P. hath refused, I know not; but as for­ward as he is, in trumpeting out hereby his Self-denial: so forward, I think, he is bound in conscience to bee, to make restitution of the silver and gold of the Idol (as hee phraseth it) which hee hath received, ever since he first took upon him to preach. Let him hereby manifest his fervour, in saying cast up; and, that he spoke from his heart, when he said, Let truth [Page 104] prevail though the sky should fall. But I fear the sky will fall, as soon as hee do it.

SECT. 10. Of Mr. P's Counsels, and direction for Re­formation.

IN his 89. & 90. page, hee subjoynes to his injunctions to the Magistrate, an exhortation to all, to come out of (Babylon that is, in his sense) Reformed Churches. And to this end, makes use of his old unworthy Art, of abusing Authors. The greatest part of those pages, being a citing of some passages, out of Diodati, and Calvin, (Minister in the Protestant Church at Geneva) intended against Rome, as separated from by that, and all other Protestant Churches: and wresting them, to carry on his exhortation to separation, from those se­parating Protestant Churches. This is a way of abusing Pro­testant writers, whereby Mr. P. outstrips the very Papists themselves; who, though they bee their sworn enemies, yet ne­ver had such a foreheadlesse impudence, as to abuse them in this kinde.

His Directions follow.

1 ‘Reform not onely substance, but circumstance; hate the garment spotted by the flesh,p. 91. &c.’

Here is nothing but unkinde insinuations, that wee labour not so to do, the contrary to which hath been evinced. I wish rigid Separatists, had the substance of Religion well reform­ed among them, and did not look more after Circumstances, than it; and that Mr. P. whilst hee is so zealous about Cir­cumstances, close not in with those of them, that have imbra­ced Popish opinions and doctrines, and so pervert the sub­stance. But what Circumstances, inconsistent with the word, do wee retain? Mr. P. mentions none here. Si accusare sat est, quis erit innocens?

2 ‘Take away, not onely Idolatrous notions, but the things. God (say those Reverend Lights,p. 92. Dod and Cleaver) in Deut. 7.25. forbids the Israelites to covet, or touch the plate of Idols, covered with gold and silver, l [...]st it should make them remem­ber the Idol, and so Worship it. So, wee must lay aside, all [Page 105] superstitious things and actions.’

I suppose, hee strikes here at our Parish-Churches, Tithes, and Temples, which have been abundantly proved to bee no Idolatrous things; and which, those pious writers, never thought of, when they wrote this; or imagined, that any man would bee so unreasonable, as thus to mis-apply, and a­buse their expressions. But it is observable, that Mr. P. who calls them Reverend lights, and hath thus flowers at hand,See whom this resembleth, Matth. 23.29, 30, 31. to strew upon the hearses of these dead Ministers, would, not­withstanding, have the Living lights of our Churches, who are men of the same Principles, in matters of faith and discipline, put under a bushel; and laid aside as broken vessels, of no farther use in the Church of God.

Mr. P. may remember time, place, and company, when, where, and in which hee thus exprest himself. I professe, were I a man in absolute authority, I would make SCAVINGERS, of all the Parish-Priests in England, to clean the waies, or rake the dunghills. Reader, art thou not amazed? Truly, though I cannot sometimes, but answer him according to his folly; my soul mourns for him, and I fear, God will severely visit, these murderous intentions, desires, and expressions upon him. How sad is it, that such thoughts of heart, should bee found, and manifested to be in him, in relation to many as worthy, dear, & painful Servants of the Lord, as are this day in the world; only because, they close not with his apprehensions, and differ from Congregatinal men, in matters of discipline? Certainly, we may judge by this, that wee should have a sad Reformation, were it referred to Mr. P's will. The gravest, holiest, and most painful Parish-Ministers, would bee accounted Idolatrous things; and so taken away according to his Direction. How well is it for England, that God hath given him no more power in it?

As for the mentioned Comment, we readily assent to it, and it toucheth us not. Wee have shewed, that our Churches, Maintenance, Temples, cannot bee proved to be Idols, or Ido­latrous. But Mr. P. must bee again minded, that though it was not lawful for the Israelites to convert the silver and gold, of the Canaanitish Idols, to their own private use: yet, they were not forbidden, to convert it to the use of the house of the Lord. And there is a command for it, Josh. 6.18, 19.24. It was an [Page 106] accursed thing, if they took it to their own private use; But be­ing brought into, and bestowed upon the house of God, it was holy to the Lord. And so, answerably now, Places, and Things, however idolatrously used heretofore, being conse­crated to God, and imployed in his service, and for his wor­ship, do no more remain Idolatrous.

p. 933 ‘Return, NOT only to the true object of worship, but to the right means, that are instituted in the word of God.’

Understands not Mr. P. what the right means of Gods wor­ship are? or doth hee knowingly, and falsely, accuse his Christian Brethren? Prayer, Preaching, Singing of Psalmes, administration of the Sacraments, these are the principal means of Gods Worship, and have wee not these in our Congregati­ons? But Mr. P. doth, I suppose, apprehend Discipline, and a form of Church-Government, to contain virtually all the means of worship. But surely, Church-government is no means of worship; though it bee a means, to preserve the Ordi­nances of God free from pollution. And, as to Church-Go­vernment, I suppose, and beleeve, to have proved in this Trea­tise, that that which we plead for, is agreeable to the Divine pat­tern, and the Independent not so. That 2 Cor. 11.3, 4. is misapplied by him. The Apostle speaks not there of Church-Discipline, but of Fundamental Christian doctrins.

SECT. 11. Of the Call of our Ministers.

p. 94 ‘LAstly, beware of Antichrists Brokers, and buy nothing of him at second hand.’

This mans modesty, is pleased to call as pious, able, and suc­cesseful a Ministry, as the Christian world hath, Antichrists Brokers. And why so? Our Ordination is that which will not down with him, it is from Rome, and therefore we are Antichrists Brokers and Antichristian.

For answer, I conceive, that this Objection and charge, may be two waies taken off. I shall propound them, and leave them with the judicious Reader.

Jus. Div. Min. Angl. p. 33, &c.1 The common Answer, which is that that is in particular laid down, improved and urged, by the Reverend Provincial [Page 107] Assembly of London, is, that, Our Ordination and Ministry, is descended to us from Christ, and his Apostles, and the pri­mitive Churches; through, but not from, the Apostate Church of Rome; And, that the receiving of our Ministry thus through Rome, makes it no more null and void, than the recei­ving the Scriptures, Sacraments, or any other Ordinance of God, through Antichristian Rome, doth make them null and void. Nay, that it is a great strengthening to our Ministry, that it appears hereby derived to us, from Christ and his Apo­stles, by the succession of a Ministry continued for 1600. years. And that, wee have not onely a lineal succession, from Christ and his Apostles, but also a Doctrinal succession, which is more, &c. So much they have said, in vindication of our Ministry from Antichristianism, as I am confident can never be fairly answered.

Mr. P. as his manner is in other points, takes no notice of what they, or others have said, in this argument; But cries out, Antichristian Ministers, Antichrists Brokers, &c. How easy is it, but how unreasonable, and absurd, thus to keep fresh, and renew charges, without removing the answers, that have taken them off? And upon what ground, can men that act so, expect that any notice bee taken of what they say? But one good turn is, that Mr. P. in this charging book, an­swers himself; and saies, that which doth in effect establish the mentioned Plea, for the validity of our Ordination and Mi­nistry. When Ordinances (saith hee, page 53.) are but cir­cumstantially corrupted, wee cannot reject them, no more, than the Israelites could reject the Ark, because it was carried, in a Cart of the Philistims making. And hee instanceth in Baptism; in which though much were added, as Annointing, Crossing, &c. yet the essentials were retained, whilst it alwaies was administred by washing, sprinkling, or dipping in water in the name of the Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. Let any man now apply this to our Ordination and Ministry, and see whether it will not fit them, as well as Baptism. The essentials of Ordination, have been alwaies retained; Ministers being ordained by Ministers of the Gospel, with Prayer, and imposition of hands, according to Christs institution, Act. 13.1, 2, 3. 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. Ther­fore though some Circumstantial Corruptions, cleaved to our Ordination received through Rome; yet according to Mr. P's [Page 108] own conclusion, wee may not renounce it. Neither can hee say any thing, against the validity of Ordination so received, which will not equally strike at Baptism, received through Rome also.

Our Ministers are no more Antichristian Ministers, or An­tichrists Brokers, because they received their Ordination through Rome; than those that have undergone the Ordinance of Bap­tism among us, and Mr. P. among them are Antichrists Chri­stians, or Antichristian baptised persons, because the Ordi­nance came to them through Rome. Wee must (saith hee) own our Baptism received in the Church of Rome; and is there not as much ground to say, wee must own our Ordination received in the Church of Rome? Especially in England, which had a true and pure Ministry in primitive times (as the Congregational Brethren confess.) Now this Ministry, for the Essentialness of it, hath been derived successively to our times, wherein it is purged from those corruptions, that did, during the preva­lency of Popery, cleave unto it. And our Ministry thus deri­ved, can no more bee called an Antichristian Ministry, than the Ministry and Priest-hood of those Priests under the Law, that were consecrated during the prevalency of Idolatrey in that Church, or of those that succeeded them; could bee called, when the service of the Lord was restored in purity, and they attended upon it, a Heathen Ministry or Priesthood.

2 Though I account that answer good and strong, and be­leeve, that our accusers will never bee able to remove it: Yet, I conceive, wee need not grant them so much, as that our Mi­nistery is descended to us through Rome. The Congregational Brethren say, some of them, that wee are Antichristian Mini­sters, because wee received our Ordination from Rome. Papists say, wee are not Christian Ministers, because wee do not receive our Ordination from Rome. Well, let those two parties dis­pute it out. Wee need not trouble our selves with the contro­versy. Wee may assert the Christianity of our Ministery, upon another account, which is this,

The Ministers of the Protestant Reformed Churches, have their Doctrinal, and Lineal Succession, from the hands of Christ and his Apostles, FROM and THROUGH the hands, of the witnesses prophecying in Sackcloath, during Antichrists reign. To evidence this, let it bee considered,

[Page 109]1 That there have been true Churches of Christ in the World, yea in the territories and Nations where Antichrist hath prevailed, more or fewer, all along the time of his reign, to this last age; maintaining the profession, and Ordinances of the Gospel of Christ, in opposition to his corruptions, though he hath persecuted and sought to destroy them for it. And among these, those of Bohemia, and the Waldenses, and Albigenses, are famously known to have continued a long while. Enemies themselves, acknowledge concerning these last, that in all likelihood they had their beginning, though possibly under o­ther names, near the time of the Apostles.

2 That in these Churches, considered in their order of time, there was both a Doctrinal, and lineal succession, from Christ and his Apostles, unto the rise of the Churches, called Prote­stant.

3 That the Protestant Reformers, and the Churches that with-drew with them from Rome, did own the same funda­mental truthes, in Doctrine and Discipline, that those did; as sufficiently appears by the History of the Waldenses, and the conferences that passed, between the Protestant Reformers and them about it.

4 That although (whereas it is certain, that the Waldenses being by persecution scattered, did sow the seeds of the true re­ligion in sundry Countries, where afterwards Protestant Chur­ches were established, which did lay a ground-work for their arising) we have not much evidence, of the Protestant Mini­sters receiving Ordination, from their Ministers: yet, wee are assured from the Histories of those times, that there was a very cheerful, and unanimous consent, between those Waldensian Churches, and the Protestant Churches; and a full concurring, in matters of Doctrin, Worship, Discipline, and Ministry; as also there was, for the main, between the Protestant Churches be­yond the Seas, and ours, afterwards, in England, in their time of Reformation.

Now, in cases so extraordinary, as those of the Protestant Churches in their first rising were; the right hand of fellowship, (which some of the Congregational Brethren, judge in ordi­nary cases sufficient) being given in effect, to the Ministery of beyond-sea Protestant Churches, by the Ministery of those for­mer Churches; and to the Ministery of our Churches, by the [Page 110] Ministery of those Protestant Churches; may well bee thought enough, to supply the want, and stand in the room, of formal Or­dination from them. And this Ministery of Protestant Chur­ches, received from Christ, through the Witnesses prophecying in Sack-cloath, hath been since continued by formal Ordina­tion, both beyond Seas and among us; as that, which in fixed Churches, and where it may be had compleatly, is of necessity, according to the rule of the Word, to be maintained and used formally, for the continuation of a Gospel Ministry.

SECT. 12. A Question discussed, Whether any unordained persons among us are lawful and compleat Ministers of the Gospel. With, An Answer to the six Arguments for Popular Ordination, brought by the Answerers of Jus Div. Min. Evangelici, in their Book called, The Preacher sent.

VVHilst Mr. P. and the Congregational Brethren of his form, are so forward to condemn our Ministry as An­tichristian; it will bee hard for them, to free their own from that charge. This proposition I will engage to make good;

Those Preachers, that are either not at all Ordained, or are ordained only by the People, when they might have been, and might be ordained by a Presbytery of preaching Elders: either they are no Ministers at all, or their Ministry is more liable to the charge of Antichristianism, than the Ministry of any of the Protestant Churches.

For proof hereof let it be considered, that as Ordination is by the Word rendered necessary, when it may be had, for the constituting of a Gospel-Ministry: so there is no rule, for any other way of Ordination of Ministers left us, in the Word of God, neither by command, nor yet by example, but only by a Presbytery of preaching Elders, either extraordinary, or ordi­nary, or mixt. By a Presbytery of preaching Elders, was Or­dination always conferred in Primitive times, on the Officers of the Church. All the texts that speak of Ordination, will bear witness to this truth, Acts 6.6. Acts 13.1, 2, 3. Acts 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. 2 Tim. 1.6. Tit. 1.5. Church-officers extraor­dinary, or ordinary, are the persons ordaining in all these places. [Page 111] There cannot be one text of Scripture produced, so much as for the concurrence of private Beleevers, with Officers extraor­dinary or ordinary, in the act of ordaining any, though the lowest Officer in the Church. Therefore, the London Ministers assertion holds good, Ordination of Ministers by the People, is a perverting of the Ordinance of God; and of no more force than Baptism administred by a Midwife, or the consecration of the Ele­ments in the Lords Supper by a person out of office. And, since Ordination of Ministers, by Ministers of the Gospel, is the only way of ordination warranted in the Word, as the former texts prove: then, Ordination of Ministers by the People must needs be an Antichristian way of Ordination, because it wholly cros­seth Christs rules for Ordination, given us in the New Testa­ment.

What is pleaded, for unordained persons assuming the holy Office of the Ministry, may be easily answered.

1 Many of them, are gifted for the Ministry.

Ans. 1. But who hath made trial of their abilities? That they should be their own Judges, in this case, is unreasonable; that People ordinarily are not able to judge of their gifts, is cer­tain. Who so meet to judge of their fitness, as Ministers? and is not this work appropriated to them? 1 Tim. 3.2, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15. compared, & 5.22?

Ans. 2. Suppose their gifts and qualifications for the Mini­stry, were proved and approved; yet, Ordination is necessary ordinarily, to invest them into office. The Apostles were en­dowed with choyce abilities, for the work of the Ministry; yet they take not upon them to be Preachers of the Gospel, until they are invested into office by Jesus Christ, Mark 6.7. to 14. So also the seventy Disciples preach not the Gospel, until they have a special Commission from Christ, Luk. 10.1. to 12. Timothy, and Titus, must have sufficient proof of mens abilities, and qualifications for the Ministry, and then such persons must be invested with Office, by imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. This is Gods way, and in it those that would serve him should desire to bee found. Wheresoever (saith Calvin) there is a Church of God, In Jer. 23.21 it hath its Laws and certain Rules of Government; and there, no man ought to thrust himself into the work of the Ministry, although he should equal all the Angels in holiness. How God hath born witness against such persons, as [Page 112] have boldly thrust themselves into this holy Office, without a lawful call and investiture; (as he did against Uzziah, 2 Chro- 26.19, 20) who, though many of them were before reputed sober and Orthodox Christians, yet soon after have been gi­ven up to beleeve a lye, and are become instruments to draw off others, into the erroneous and crooked paths of Socinia­nism, Arminianism, Papism, Quakism, Atheism, is most sad to consider. From such Prophets as these, is profaneness gone forth into the Land.

2 They are not only gifted, but they find in themselves a strong inclination, and desire to preach the Gospel, that they may win souls to God. Therefore they may take upon them the Ministry.

Ans. What Anabaptist, Arminian, Quaker, may not thus plead? And indeed, in the Schools of Arminians, and Ana­baptists, was this Doctrin tending to confusion, and all errour hatched. The Remonstrants judge it lawful for any one to preach the Word,Episcop. Thes. privat. Disp. 26. Thes. 5. Zanch. in Praecept. 4. if he be fit to teach, and the People desire it; and the Anabaptists in Zanchy's time, thought it lawful for any man to take upon him the Ministry, if he thought hee had the call of the Spirit. Those that desire to win Souls to God, ought to desire, if they are fit for it, to be invested with office in the way of Christ, by a lawful Ordination, by a Presbytery of preaching Elders.

What is pleaded for Popular Ordination, comes now to bee considered. The Answerers of Jus Div. Min. Evangelici, lay down this proposition. In a Church that hath no Officers in it, some Beleevers may lawfully, and warrantably Ordain without Officers.

The Preacher sent, p. 323. to p. 330,This they endeavour to prove, by six Arguments.

Arg. 1. To hold that some Beleevers may not lawfully and war­rantably ordain Officers, in a Church that hath none in it, would necessarily and unavoidably inferre, Ordination to be in such a case unattainable; therefore it is contrary to sound Doctrin, and not to be asserted. For the Antecedent, they say, There are no Officers on earth, authorized or appointed by Christ, to Ordain (in case a Church hath no Officers in it) any more than Beleevers without Officers. In regard, the special rules and examples left in the Gos­p [...]l, about Ordination, give no more warrant to Officers to ordain, in such a Church, than Beleevers without them. For, either they were extraordinary Officers that ordained, or had an extraordi­nary [Page 113] Call to ordain. There is no precept for, or example of any or­dinary Officer, acting in Ordination (out of the particular Church he is over) upon any ordinary call, in any one text.

Ans. This Argument is built upon a false Hypothesis, That the Churches of the Gospel are Congregational only, which I have disproved before. VVere our Churches generally con­formed to the Gospel-pattern, divers single Congregatious be­ing united in one compleat Church, after the constitution of the Church of Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, the Churches of Asia, &c. this case would hardly fall out that is mentioned. For, though the Officers of a single Congregation might fail, yet there would still be a sufficient Presbytery left in that Presbyte­rial Church, to Ordain others in their room.

But take the case as it is, these Brethren fall short of proving their Argument; for, 1 Suppose, that all the Officers, men­tioned as Ordainers in other Churches in the New Testament, were as to their Office or Call extraordinary: yet, how in-con­sequent must it needs be that therefore the People may ordain? All the precepts and examples, hold forth the Ordainers to bee Church-Officers; none of them give the least hint, of the like power in the people, in any case; therefore, surely this power is restrained to Officers, and denied to the people. That this work belongs to Officers, the Precepts and Examples prove clearly; that it belongs in any one case to the People, let them give us one precept or example. 2 The matter of the Objecti­on, which they pretend to answer, is a sufficient answer to them; That, the extraordinary Officers mentioned, might act in this as ordinary Officers, and so their acting may warrant or­dinary Officers in ordaining, even in the case they mention. Officers are appointed to Ordain, the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery is required in Ordination, ordained Offi­cers had it in those Primitive times (whose practice is our pat­tern) though from Ministers, that belonged not in particular to the Congregations for which they were ordained; and, will it not hence follow, that in unpresbyterated Churches, Of­ficers of other Churches are to ordain Ministers? If not, (to re­tort these Brethrens reasoning, and use it more consequently than they doe) Ordination will be in such Churches unattainable; for Christ, who hath given expresly power for it to Church-Officers, hath no where given it to the people. Their Medium, [Page 114] will better serve against them, than for them. 3 It is as evi­dent, as that they say sometimes the contrary, that there was then ordination by ordinary Officers. Act. 13.1, 2, 3. speaks of Ordination by ordinary Officers at Antioch, such certainly were many there, and it is a wonder these Brethren should question it; What, no ordinary Officers at Antioch? The Presbytery at Antioch (saies the New-England plat-form) laid hands upon Paul and Barnabas;Platform. p. 12. The Presbytery at Ephesus, upon Timothy an Evangelist. Ordinary Officers laid hands upon the Officers of many Churches. Where there are no Elders, wee see not why im­position of hands may not bee performed by the Elders of other Churches. Timothy and Titus did ordain with imposition of hands, in Unpresbytered Churches, but they laid not on hands alone, but with a Presbytery, for so had Paul appointed them, as must bee confessed, unlesse (which is groundlesse and unrea­sonable) wee do suppose Paul's command and directions, to cross his own practice. See 1 Tim. 4.14. with 2 Tim. 1.6. But, say these Brethren, those Presbyteries had an Extraordinary Call, they acted not in such Ordinations upon an ordinary call. That is easily said, but they would have done well to have proved that their cal was extraordinary. They do not do it, they cannot do it.

'Tis warrant then enough, for Ordination in Unpresbytera­ted Churches, by Presbyteries, Ministers of other Churches, and against the peoples Ordination; that Ordination, is made by the word the work of a Presbytery, and signified to have been per­formed in such Churches by a Presbytery, which these Brethren cannot prove to have had an extraordinary call to it; and that it is no where made the work of the people, or signified to have been performed in any case by them.

Argum. 2 In a Church that hath no Officers, either some be­leevers may ordain without Officers, Preacher sent. p. 330. to 334. or else Beleevers and Officers of other Churches, or else Officers of other Churches onely, or else there is no way laid out by Christ, for Ordination in such a case. But Officers of other Churches only, are not appointed; let our Brethren prove it. Wee have under the former Argument found, that all the Texts that speak about Ordination, intimated, either the Officers that acted in it, or the call to be extraordinary.

Ans. In such a case, neither may Beleevers alone, nor Beleev­ers and Officers of other Churches joyntly, ordain; Because, wee have no example in the New-Testament, of the peoples [Page 115] concurring with Officers, extraordinary or ordinary, in or­daining any, though the lowest Officer in the Church, much lesse of their ordaining alone. And therefore, wee st [...] re­tort their argument against them; Either Ordination in the case mentioned, must bee the act of Officers of other Churches onely: or else, there is no way laid out by Christ for ordination, in such a case. Let them prove, by Precept or Example, that it may be the peo­ples act (affirmanti [...] incumbit probatio) or else, they jangle to no purpose. They tell us, they haue under the former Argu­ment found, that all the Texts that speak about Ordination, inti­mate the Officers that acted in it, or the Call, to bee extraordinary; When as all that they have said, is onely, that they might bee all extraordinary Teachers in Antioch, and they much question, whether the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. were an ordinary Pres­bytery, and they might bee all extraordinary; and not one word to prove, that if there were any ordinary Officers among them (and who but they think there were not) their Call was extra­ordinary in this businesse; which, notwithstanding, was the main thing they should have done.

They require proof, for the peculiarness of ordaining power, in Officers of other Churches, in the case in hand. Wee have proved, and do prove it. Ordination is by the Holy Ghost, committed to Church-Officers, and we find them acting in it, and no intimation that the people have any thing to do in it; Therefore to Church Officers alone it belongs, to act in it in all cases, and so in the case in hand.

Their harping upon the extraordinariness of the Ordai­ners which the New-Testament mentions, cannot enervate the argument; no not if they could prove, that none but ex­traordinary Officers ordained, in the places in relation to which Ordination is mentioned, which they can never do: for still it remaines, that it is the work of Officers, and put upon and practised by none else: Therefore, if Ordination be to be con­tinued in the Church, after the cessation of extraordinary Of­ficers, it is the work of ordinary Officers, and of none else.

Wee read of none, that administred the Lords-Supper, but Extraordinary Officers, the Lord Jesus, and the Apostles, Act. 2. and Paul, Act. 20.11. and the Commission given by Christ (This do,) in the institution of this Ordinance, was gi­ven to Extraordinary Officers, even to his Apostles. But, will [Page 116] it hence follow, that the Administration of this Ordinance, be­longs not to ordinary Officers, and to them onely, now? Yet, by these Brethrens way of arguing, this may bee as well con­cluded, as what they do contend for. Their begged supposi­tion, that there is no Scripture-warrant for any other Presby­tery, but that onely which is in a particular Congregation; and no rule, to justify a Presbyteries putting forth any acts, as a Presbytery, towards any but the particular members of that Congregation, where they are fixed (which is another false hypothesis they build upon) I shall not here consider, having spo­ken to it in this Treatise.

Preacher sent. p. 335.Argum. 3 Some Beleevers, who are no Officers, may publike­ly Preach, as wee have proved; therefore, some Beleevers, who are no Officers, may ordain without Officers, in a Church that hath no Officers. For, Scripture doth not evidence, that Ordina­tion is so great work as Preaching, or that it is more limited or re­strained to Officers, than preaching is,

Answ. That Beleevers, who are no Officers, may publike­ly and ordinarily Preach, they have not proved: as Reverend Mr. Collings, his late Vindicia Min. Ev. revind. doth abun­dantly manifest, to which I refer them and the Reader, to see how poorly they have acquitted themselves, under that attempt. All reformed Churches condemn the practice of such persons, as Antiscriptural, that without Ordination, take upon them to bee Preachers, in a constituted Church; allowing them to Preach, onely for Probation, in order to Ordination desired by them. As for their Argument, and the Reason of it, they are very wilde. For, were it granted, that Be­leevers that are no Officers, might ordinarily Preach, yet they themselves will grant, they preach not as Officers. But Ordi­nation they cannot finde in Scripture (neither do they say they do) committed to, or performed by any, but Officers; There­fore, it is an act of Office, and so, it no way follows, that if Be­leevers may preach (as no Officers) they may also Ordain. But (say they) Ordination, is not more limitted or restrained to Officers, than Preaching. Well, but what Preaching mean they? Extraordinary, occasionall, probational preaching, is not so much limitted or restrained to Officers, as Ordination; but Authoritative preaching, is as much restrained to them as Ordination, and Ordination as that. But it is not (say they) [Page 117] so great a work as Preaching; therefore, if beleevers may Preach, they may Ordain. Alas! is the Preaching the Scripture mag­nifies the preaching of private Beleevers, or of Officers? certain­ly their Argument, and their Reason speak not ad i­dem.

The Scripture magnifies an authoritative Preaching of the Gospel, by Church-Officers above other acts; These Brethren, speak of the preaching of gifted Brethren out of Office, which is not authoritative; and then tell us they may Ordain, because they may Preach, which is the greater work. How un­handsome is this arguing for men of parts? And if unordain­ed gifted Brethrens preaching bee that great work, which the Scripture magnifies, above other Ministerial acts: may they not at well say, such may administer the Sacraments? every whit as well.

Argum. 4 Some Beleevers may with Christs allowance act in other publike special Church-works, and such, as that there can be no special reason given, against their ordaining, more than against their doing those other works. Therefore in a Church that hath no Officers they may ordain. Act. 15.2, 22, 23. & 2 Cor. 8.18, 19, 23.

Answ. If their proposition were true, yet they could gain nothing by it; for it is Reason enough against private Beleevers Ordaining, that the Holy-Ghost hath expresly put this work up­on Officers, and no where upon private Beleevers. But, they are far from proving what they say. Act. 15.2. speaks in all probability, of the Officers of the Church at Antioch onely; read 1, 2, 3. verses. They that determined to send, were those between whom there was no small dissention and disputation. The certain other of them, are some of those Teachers sent with Paul and Barnabas; and they are all distinguished from the Church, as Of­ficers from the people. That they were all Teachers, the 32. verse also evinceth. But, if the Church of Beleevers, had chosen and sent these their Officers, for this work; will it follow hence, they might put men into Office? Apage. That there were any private Brethren, in the number of the chosen and sent here, let them prove; they cannot.

The 22. & 23. verses, whence they say, that the brethren acted in the Synod, and therefore Beleevers may act in ordina­tion (unlesse wee will say, that men may act in making Decrees, [Page 118] in a Synod, that may not ordain) give them no sufficient ground thus to speak, and are much mistaken by them, as by what hath been said, Sect. 5. of this Treatise may appear. The whole Church, may mean that Synodical Church. The Bre­thren are mentioned, to signify their consent to what was de­creed; Yet it cannot bee proved, that private Brethren, much lesse that the whole Church of Jerusalem, were present at the Synod. [...] (then, vers. 22) can bee no way necessitated to signify, immediately upon the conclusion of James his speech; no more than [so when they were dismissed] vers. 30. signifies that the Messengers from Antioch, went away that night. The Decrees might bee written out, and the consent of the Church of private Brethren might bee had, in due time and place; though not at that particular season. And, though the private Brethren are mentioned, as consenting to the Decrees; yet, as it inferres not that there was a necessity of their consent: So doth it not at all prove, that they concurred in making the Decrees, for then, they had been their Decrees. But, as they are not said to come together to consider of this mat­ter, but onely the Apostles and Elders, vers. 6. (though it is possible some of them might bee there, to hear how it was considered of) So, the Decrees are not called their Decrees, but expresly the Deerees ordained of the Apostles and Elders, Act. 16.4.

That the Brethren are taken into the inscription of the Letter, is farre from proving, that they concurred in ma­king the Decrees, or had any joynt power, with the Apostles and Elders, in imposing them; Because, it is frequent, for the Epistles of the New-Testament, to take into their in­scriptions, for Salutation, and by way of consent to what is written, those who cannot bee reputed, to have had joynt power with the Writer of them; and of whom, all that is spoken, even without limitation, cannot bee affirmed, &c. as Gal. 1.2. & 8. and other places.

These Brethren, therefore, are too too weakly confident, in saying, Either our Brethren must say, that some Be­leevers may ordain; or else, That men may act in making de­crees in a Synod, that may not ordain: It is denyed them, that private Beleevers may act in making Decrees in a Synod, [Page 119] and that they did it in that Synod; and they have not proved, nor will ever bee able to prove it.

That other place, 2 Cor. 8.18, 19, 23. helps them not at all neither. For, it doth not appear, that these messengers were any of them private Beleevers; nor that they were chosen and sent by private Beleevers; and if they had, what can they infer from hence for private Brethrens ordaining? Nothing cer­tainly by all their Logick. Messengers are chosen by the Churches, to carry their contribution to necessitous Brethren, Therefere, they may depute private Beleevers (to whom Christ never gave power for it) to ordain Ministers. Who sees not the weaknesse of this consequence? is there any equality, or analogy between these acts?

Arg. 5. Those that give the essence of the Call to Office, Preacher sent. p. 337. may also give the adjunct. But some Beleevers without Officers, do give the essence of the call to Office; For Election is that which giveth the essence to the outward call to Office, and that belongeth to a Church (of beleevers without Officers) Ergo, they may give the adjunct, Ordination.

Answ. This is another false Hypothesis of theirs, and a main cause of their many mistakes, that Election gives the essence of the call to Office, nay, the whole essence of it, p. 242. and that Ordination is but an adjunct.

But, because this point is largely discussed, between the Reverend Authors of Jus. Div. Min. and them; I shall say the less to it.

1 If Election did give the Essence of the Call to Office, and Ordination were but an adjunct; yet it follows not, that Pri­vate beleevers may ordain. Because, whatever ordination bee, Christ hath made it the work of Officers, and no where of the People, as hath been said. Their reasonings will do them no good, without a Precept, or Example.

2 If Election did give the whole essence of the Call to Of­fice, yet, it follows not that the Peoples Election alone doth do it. Surely, Ministers have an electing Power also. When Titus is appointed to ordain, to constitute Elders in every City, hee is charged to look, that they bee such, as were able to convince gain-sayers, Tit. 1.5, 9. and that ordinarily, private Beleevers, yea, Churches of private beleevers, are not sufficient to judge [Page 120] of, nor any where appointed Judges of it. If then, the Mini­sters, who are the proper Judges of this, do not approve and chuse as such persons, those whom the People chuse; the peo­ples choice hath no validity in it, and so doth not constitute them Ministers. In vain should Paul tell Titus, what abili­ties Elders should bee found by him to have, in order to his constituting them in every City; if the people might chuse men, whom hee judged unable, and their election stand valid.

3 If Election did give the essence of the Call to the Office of Eldership, yet these Brethren cannot prove from Scripture, that it belongs to private Beleevers, as giving such a Call. No Scripture, that I know of, gives power to people, to chuse their Elders, so as to give them thereby a Call to Office. They may chuse them in order to the exercise of their Ministerial Office among them; but, do not by that choice, confer the Ministerial Office upon them; no nor empower them, to exercise that office among them. The Scriptures commonly urged for it, prove no such thing. For which see Sect. 7. of this book, about the the end. That Ministers have power to chuse and set Elders in the Churches, that mentioned place in Titus proves. That People have such an electing power, no Scripture proves. There is some shew, of their power to chuse Deacons, but not El­ders; and that choice, Act. 6. doth not appear to have consti­tuted them such. Besides, there is a great deal of difference between chusing those who are to look to the goods of the Church, and those who are to watch over the souls of the Church, and to rule them in the Lord. The Deacons are the Churches Servants, but Elders their Rulers.

4 That Ordination gives the essence of the Call to Offfice, the Authors they answer have proved; and will, I suppose, vindi­cate their proofs from what they have said against them, if they shall finde it to bee tanti. The very first of them, from the New Testament, is sufficient to conclude this, which is concerning Deacons, an Office inferiour to Eldership, Act. 6.3. Look ye out among you (say the Apostles) seven men, whom wee may appoint over this businesse. They cannot bee deemed to have had the Essence of the call to Office, till they were appointed to it; the looking of them out, did not appoint them to it; the setting them before the Apostles, did not appoint them to it, for [Page 121] it is whom we (not you) may appoint. Appointed to it they were then, by the Apostles laying of hands on them with prayer. There­fore, the Apostles Ordaining them, with prayer and impositi­on of hands, gave them the essence of the call to office; and so Ordination gives the essence of the call to office, and is not an adjunct. This Argument then, is farre from proving that peo­ple may ordain.

Arg. 6. If Ordination consisteth in, Preacher sent, p. 338, &c. or be made up of such acts only, as Beleevers may undoubtedly perform, and these acts be not limited in their use, upon this occasion, to Officers only; then, in a Church which hath no Officers, some beleevers may lawfully and warrantably ordain without Officers. But, Ordination consisteth, &c. Ergo. The minor they endeavour to prove, by saying, that, The three things belonging to Ordination on the part of the Ordai­ners, fasting, prayer, imposition of hands, may be all performed by Beleevers.

Ans. The minor is exceeding weak. That private beleevers may joyn with the Ordainers, in fasting and prayer, none deny, but what is that to the purpose? That Ordination consists in prayer (as they say) we deny, and they can never prove it. It consists in mission, appointing, setting apart; which, Scripture precepts, and examples, teach us doe belong to Officers, and no where hints to belong to the People. That private beleevers may lay on hands on Officers in Ordination, no Scripture proves; Numb. 8.10. is farre from it; for, 1. Nothing can be certain­ly concluded from Mosaical Ceremonies, for practices under the New Testament, unless they bee there opened, and the practices there confirmed, by precept or example; and this might be answer enough. 2. They are told, that those of the People who laid on hands, had a command to doe it (their talking of mediate and im­mediate is to little purpose) but there is no such command, ex­press, or included in the New Testament; And will they say, from that command, that there is now a necessity of the peoples laying on hands in Ordination? They must say it if they will make use of this text their way; and then it will follow, there have been none rightly ordained for one thousand six hundred years since Christ. 3. It is clear from this eighth of Numbers, by reading the following verses, that the Levites being taken instead of the first-born, which were Gods by his appointment, [Page 122] vers. 16, 17, 18. the people, whoever of them they were, did by this Ceremony only declare, that they closed with the Lords ap­pointment, and desired the Levites might according to it, be ac­cepted and taken in the room of the first born; and therefore, they are called, an offering of the children of Israel, vers. 11. they offe­red them by Gods appointment to the Lord, instead of the first-born, and the laying on of hands was a sign thereof. After this, sacrifices being offered for them, and they offered to the Lord by Aaron and his sons, vers. 12, 13. they were to enter upon their Office, vers. 14, 15. Now, what analogy is there, between the Peoples offering of the Levites, with imposition of hands, upon such a special reason and account, and but in order to their being constituted Officers, and admitted to the service of the Taber­nacle, which they were afterwards by Aaron and his Sons: and the ordaining of Ministers, with impositions of hands by the peo­ple, and that without Officers, now under the New Testament, where we have clearly, institution, and example, to declare it to be the Ministers work?

They proceed to say; None of the texts, which speak of Or­dination, limit it to Officers only. Let our brethren prove any such limitation, else private beleevers may warrantably or­dain.

VVhat Readers, did these Brethren think, their Book would meet with, to urge this reasoning, again and again, as an argument for popular Ordination? They might have consi­dered, how easie the proof is. Either it is limited to Officers on­ly, or committed to others as well as them; But it is not commit­ted to others; therefore it is limited to Officers only. Let them shew, by Scripture-precept, or example, out of the New Testament, that it is committed to others; else, private be­leevers Ordaining, must needs remain unwarrantable. Let them shew private Beleevers warrant, as Ministers can theirs. We prove it is committed to Officers, they cannot prove it is committed to others; doth it not then follow that it is limited to Officers only. May they not by their way of reasoning, as well say that Magistrates, as such, may ordain Ministers, be­cause they are not by name excluded? and so screw Erastus his way one pin higher, than ever he durst bring it to? Nay, may they not, by this reasoning, argue that private beleevers [Page 123] may administer the Sacraments, since no place of Scripture doth express the administration of them to be limited to Offi­cers, by excluding the people from it?

These Brethrens Arguments, then, are not at all conclusive for their purpose. The Holy Ghost hath committed Ordina­tion to Ministers, and no where to the people; for them there­fore to act in it, is a gross and very sinful usurpation.

Hence also it will follow, that people cannot, without sin, own unordained persons, or such as are ordained only by the People, as Ministers of Jesus Christ. As these may bee justly charged, to run before they are sent, as those did, Jerem. 23.21. so those may be charged justly, as the Israelites about their Kings, Hos. 8.4. to set up Pastors but not by him, and Ministers but he knew not (approved not) of it.

Therefore, let such supposed Ministers, bee humbled for their rash intrusion, and seek for Ordination at the hands of Gos­pel-Ministers; And People, who have such Pastors, urge them to it, and upon their refusal and neglect of it, let them know, that they cannot own them as Ministers of Christ.

SECT. XIII. Containing the Author's humble supplication to those in Authority, for Reformation.

SInce, notwithstanding the Criminations of the Accuser, whom this Book answereth; and the several charges from others; our Churches remain true Churches of Christ, and need not new making, but reforming; and our Ministry a true Ministry; and that it appears, that such only are lawful Mini­sters of Jesus Christ, and Embassadours for him (among us who have a constituted Church,) as have been ordained by a Presbytery of preaching Elders: My humble request to the Ma­gistrates of our Land, is,

1 That they would improve to their utmost, the power put in­to their hands, by the King of the Church Jesus Christ, for Re­formation in our Churches; by stirring up, and enjoyning Mi­nisters, to lay out themselves more fully, for the instructing, admonishing, and reforming, of the flocks committed to [Page 124] them; and people, to receive, yeeld, and submit, unto their Ministerial labours, and authority, in order to the due use of all the Ordinances of Christ, and such a conversation as be­cometh the Gospel. And that therefore, they would bee plea­sed, to countenance, and enjoyn, the n [...]cessary works of Catechising, and private instruction; and, by their authority, to strengthen the hands of Christs Ministers, in their keeping the Ordinances of Christ, and particularly that of his Supper, from profanation.

2 That they would take care, that every Congregation, so farre as may be, stand furnished with a Minister of the Gos­pel, rightly qualified, and invested into office, by Ordination, received from Ministers of the Gospel, according to Christs institution. Jehosaphat, sent none with his Princes, to teach the People the Law of God, but Levites, and Priests, persons regularly invested with office, 2 Chron. 17.8, 9. The Churches of God, in Primitive times, in after ages, at this day, in Scotland, France, Sweden, Denmark, Helvetia, Germany, the Netherlands, New-England, all the Presbyterian Churches in England, yea of Congregational Churches almost all, doe with one consent affirm, that authoritative preaching of the Word, and dispensing of the Sacraments, belong only to a lawfully Ordained Ministry. I beseech our Rulers, in the bowels of Christ, that effectual care bee taken, that all our Ministers may be such; that countenance, publick places, and publick maintenance, bee afforded only to such. How should wee expect our comforts should bee dear to God, if wee are not zealous for that, which so nearly concerns his glory?

3 That they would be pleased, effectually to suppress, to their power, all Blasphemies, Heresies, and Anti-fundamen­tal Errours; that they may not bee written, taught, vented, promoted, to the prejudice of the Truth, trouble of the Church, and endangering the immortal Souls of people; and that men may not have liberty to defame, and every Bla­tero to rail at, and charge with Antichristianism, the Chur­ches and ways of God, which Protestants have generally owned, and sealed their testimony unto, with the bloud of multitudes of Martyrs.

Then would their light break forth as the morning, and the glory of the Lord would be their rereward.

Let timid spirits cry out of Lions in the way, and fear, that if there bee an owning of thorow Reformation, erroneous and loose persons will bee discontented, and ready to joyn with forreign enemies, to disturb the publick peace, and pro­cure the ruine of Church and State. But, let Magistrates, who are the Ministers of God, and bear his Name, zealously goe through with the work of the Lord, and expect confidently protection, and a blessing from him in it; setting before them that excellent pattern, Jehosaphat, 2 Chron. 17. whose care, and zeal for Reformation, was remarkably owned, and rewarded by God; for, He stablished the Kingdom in his hand, all Judah brought him presents, and the Philistines and Arabi­ans tribute, he had riches and honour in abundance, and the fear of the Lord fell upon the Kingdoms of the Lands, that were round about Judah, so that they made no warre against Jehosaphat. Thus will the Lord reward, Rulers that are zealous for his ho­nour, and against whatsoever strikes at it; And our Supream Magistrate, and Chief Rulers, may, in the discharge of this work, look for like success.

SECT. XIV. Of Mr. P's conclusion, abusing that of the Lord Du Plessis his Book.

I Shall conclude all, with that noble Speech, P. 95, 96. of that noble Lord Du Plessis. May we not lawfully say with the Prophet, We would have cured Babel, but she would not be cured? forsake her, and let us goe every one to his own Country, &c.

It is no small aggravation of this mans sin, in renouncing Protestant Churches, and declaiming against them as Anti­christian; that, he doth so grosly abuse, in many places of his Pamphlet, the exhortations, and expressions of their Writers, so as to out-strip therein in impudence, the Papists themselves. And yet, he is so insensible of the evil of this miscarriage, that hee dares, to conclude his Treatise with it; (for though he marks but eight lines as Du Plessis his words; his two last pages, from [Page 126] the beginning of the words now mentioned, to the end of his Book, are verbatim, the translated conclusion of Du Plessis his Book.) Now, how highly unworthy this carriage of his is, appears, in that, 1. He smooths, and speaks honourably, of this Lord (whom the very drift of his Book casts disgrace upon, he being a main assertor and defender of the Protestant Church-State) calling his Speech, that noble Speech, of that noble Lord. VVherein, he is exceeding like those Pharisees, against whom Christ pronounceth a woe, Mat. 23.29. 2. He grosly wrests his exhortation, which is to separation from Rome; in pressing it, for separation from Protestant Churches, which never came into this Lords heart. 3. He shamefully abuseth his exhorta­tion, which is to close with, and get, to that holy Mountain, the little Zoar, Gods Church, how small and contemptible soever in the eyes of the world (by which he meant Protestant Churches) in managing it, for joyning with separate Congregational Chur­ches, as distinct, and separating from those Protestant Chur­ches as Antichristian; and setting up a Democratical Govern­ment, contrary to theirs; which Du Plessis would have abhor­red the very thought of. If he doth not (as he saith, p. 95.) scorn­fully upbraid any, explicitely; yet, surely, he doth implicitely upbraid this Lord, and all Protestant Churches, with owning an Antichristian Church-state; and withall foulely abuseth their admonitions to separate from Rome, in urging them for separation from them; as if they had condemned their own stan­ding, which they are sufficiently known to have throughly asserted as Christian.

The Lord give Mr. P. repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth; and deliver him, and all others of his mind, from their deluding apprehensions, and sinful separation. Amen.