HAVING already addressed you upon the like Errand with our present one, we shall not make any long Apology at this Time, judging it need­less; because we trust we have already given you some Proof of the Goodness and Honesty of our Design, in speaking our Part in this publick Manner, in the Defence of despised Truth and Order, against the Errors and Disorders of the Times. It is enough (we suppose) to tell you, that we design to prosecute the same Cause at this Time: For tho' we are sensible, by late Experience, that we cannot escape the Lash of virukent Tongues, if we speak Truth without Disguise, as formerly; yet we are in great hopes, that our speaking the Truth without Palliation, will prevent our fal­ling under the severer Stings of our own Consciences; when Times appear such, that the Lovers of Truth cannot be silent and innocent. We entirely agree with a Paragraph in a lace Writer, who saith, ‘That such as are Friends to Liberty, will find it equally necessary to be Friends to the Principles of the Reformation: I am, saith he, always of Opinion, that Pro­testant Liberty and Protestant religious Truths are closely linked together, and together must stand or fall. The Refor­mation can only subsist and flourish by the Principles it began upon: Every thing else, in some Shape or other, tends to Po­pery and Slavery. There is a false Policy in the World, an over-valued Learning and mistaken Wisdom: Nothing ex­cept Consistency will bear Examination. Truth only is great, [Page 4] and at one Time or other will prevail.’ Upon this Score we are much surpriz'd at the Conduct of many dissenting Protestants among us, who (tho' they seem'd lately zealous for Protestant Principle [...]) are all on a sudden, either for Want of Judgment or Consideration, fallen into an uncommon Liking and Admiration of Mr Whitefield's patched, and in many Places, false Scheme, as we have already shewn; which to the considerate Observer carries in it ( [...] we think) as plain a Design against Protestant Principles, as the Interim of Old, in Germany, in King Henry the Eighth's Times did.

We cannot but [...]ook upon it as a plain Proof of Men's Fickle­ness and Want of Judgment, or of their Want of right Attach­ment to Presbyterian, or even to true Protestant Principles, that such an enthusia [...]tick, incoherent, and in some Places, vain and fabulous Scheme, smelling so rankly of Popery, should all on a sudden prevail among Non-conformists, after all their Scuffle with Conformists about Popish Relicts: For what is Popery, if ascribing to the holy Scriptures a two-fold Sense, viz. a literal and mystical or hidden Sense, and asserting, that Sacraments are essential Means of Salvation, &c. be not true Popish Dialect: And where but here can we rank Mr. Whitefield's superstitious fasting▪ on Wednesdays and Fridays, Pharisee and Popish like, as well as on the holy Season of Lent, as he calls it? And what but a popish Penance was his abstaining from eating of Pyes, wearing woollen Gloves, patched Gown and dirty Shoes; what could this be, but a [...]ind of voluntary▪ Humility, of which the Apostle speaks in Col. ii. 18? What Reward can Men expect from God for such vain Superstitions; but who hath required this at your Hands? as Isa. i. 12. What but monkish Holiness can be promoted by such Dirt? Can any suppose that the holy One, who once injoined divers bodily Purifications or Washings, in order to instruct Men in the spiritual Lesson of Soul Purifica­tion, in which his Soul delights, hath any where injoined Men to wallow in Dirt, in order to make their Souls clean? But what but monkish Holiness can be expected in a seeming Con­vert and professed Admirer of K [...]mpis? For is not Mr. White­field such, if the Account he gives of himself be true? It is very remarkable, that a Party among us, who having imbibed some enthusiastick Notions, and do on that Account judge and pro­claim themselves our only spiritual Men, condemning all that differ from them for carnal Men and Hypocrit [...]s are very in­dustrious [Page 5] to establish Mr. Whitefield's Character, and to propa­gate the Credit of his Scheme, and also to palliate and defend his Errors: and Mr. Whitefield makes grateful Return to them in Specie; and this puts us in Mind of an old Story, which we read somewhere; How that Sanctius, the King of Arragon's Brother, who marching against the Saracens, diverted himself a while at Rome: The bountiful Pope, who is always prodigal of what costs him Nothing, causes him to be proclaimed, Sanctius, by the Grace of God, King of Egypt, &c. The Noise of the Trumpets calls him to the Balcony, and he asks, what was the Matter? He was answered, that his Holiness had presented him with the entire Kingdom of Egypt. Presently he commands his own Trumpeters, to go and salute the Pope, in Requital, Caliph of Bal [...]ash. How like this are the Proclamations made among us at Seasons, we leave others to determine, only we shall take Notice, that it hath been observed. That when it is Mr. White­field's Turn to speak, then Mr. G. Tennent is proclaimed the most able and most eminent Servant of Christ, and all his Associates or Party spiritual Men and faithful Ministers of Christ, &c. &c. On the other Hand, if their Turn comes to speak or write, then Mr. Whitefield is proclaimed the most able and most eminent Ser­vant of Christ: Whereas, by his Writings he appears to be ei­ther weak or worse; How else comes it to pass, that these are so incoherent, empty, vain and trifling, and even fabulous in many Places, as we have partly shewn already? When there is such an Hue and Cry after Pharisees, we would be glad to know, whether it would be safe for the other Side to trumpet one ano­ther's Praises so loudly and highly as this Side doth, without be­ing in Danger of being taken up for Pharisees, and having the Crow's Eggs cast in their Teeth? Because Christ saith to those Pharisees that were offended at him for healing a Man on the Sabbath, How can ye believe, that receive Honour one of another? John v. 44. Besides, is it not some Difficulty to understand, how two most Eminents can orderly subsist among Catholicks, unless One be content to reside at Avignon, and leave Rome for the other? For, according to the old Rule, two Suns in the Firmament is one too many, because ominous. It was remark­able, how highly Mr. Whitefield publickly did commend Mr. G. Tennent's printed Sermon, preached at Nottingham, of the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry, as an excellent Piece, and as be judged, an unanswerable one: This, together with the [Page 6] general Applause given to the said Sermon, by many of our Party-Zealots, so far influenced us, as to incite us to read said Ser­mon again; and upon the best Perusal we could make of it, we are so far disappointed, that tho' Mr. Tennent, in some of his former Sermons, gave us tolerable Satisfaction; yet in this he seems to us to have fallen into several palpable and unhappy Mistakes, which have influenc'd him (as we think) to express himself otherwise than according to Truth, and Christian Chari­ty: if we have been any Ways mistaken herein, we are very willing to submit the Paragraphs we have extracted, and our Re­marks thereupon, to your more mature Judgments. To proceed then in Order, we shall in the first Place take a cursory View of the Epistle Dedicatory, so that we may make an orderly Entrance, and let us come out as we can.

I. Epistle Dedicatory, Paragraph the First, "I thought it proper to dedicate to you the following Sermon, which I have deli­vered among you, as a Testimony of my Regard for you, and Desire that you might be directed in the Choice of a Minister, that so that important Affair might be managed to your spiritual and immortal Benefit.

Query I. When it was Mr. Tennent's professed Aim to direct the People of Nottingham, in the Choice of a Minister, doth not he seem to be very deficient in giving them proper Directions for that Purpose? For what can we find, that looks like Directions, but the following Paragraph in pag. 30, 31. And O! that vacant Congregations would take due Care in the Choice of their Ministers! Here indeed they should hasten slowly. The Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them which said they were Apostles, and were not, and for finding them Liars. Hypocrites are against all know­ing of others, and judging, in order to hide their own Filthiness; like Thieves they flee the Search, because of their stolen Goods: But the more they endeavour to hide, the more they expose their Shame. Does not the spiritual Man judge all Things? Tho' he cannot judge the Estate of subtle Hypocrites infallibly; yet may he not give a near Guess, who are the Sons of Sceva, by their Manner of Praying, Preaching, and Living? Many Pharisee-Teachers have got a fine long String of Prayings by Heart, so that they are never at a Loss about it; their Prayers and Preachings are generally of a Length, and both as dead as a Stone, and without all Savour. Dixi.

Qu. II. Tho' we join with Mr. Tennent, That vacant Con­gregations should take due Care in the Choice of their Ministers; [Page 7] it being a weighty Concern of the greatest Importance on many Accounts; yet we wou'd ask, What sort of a Proof of due Care is hastening slowly? or how will both consist? For is not the Danger of those Sheep that want a Shepherd great, as well as that of those who have only unconverted Ministers? For is not a dry Morsel, or half a Loaf, better than no Bread? And is not the Privilege of a Gospel-Ministry, so precious, as to deserve all possible Speed in procuring it? Or is it supposed, that a settled Minister will stand in the Itinerant's Way or Light? If there be any such spiritual Men in vacant Congregations, as can on the bare Hearing of the Declaration of Men's Experiences, presently tell, whether they are carnal or converted; where is the Prudence or Care in being tardy, when it can be dispatch'd to a good Purpose at once? Or if the Members of vacant Con­gregations dare not trust their own Skill herein; would it not be a good Deed, if the Congregation be able, to pay Ten or Twenty Pounds to a new-fashion'd Rabbi, for a Visit, who can in an Hour or two, by keeping a Judgment-Meeting, guess the Matter at once, and then pronounce the Judgment with as much Authority, as if he sat in Peter's Chair? Or if the Congregation be poor, would it not be a Deed of Charity in such Rabbies, to give a vacant Congregation such a Visit gratis, or only upon their paying a small Modicum to bear the Charges of their Journey? And when in settled Congregations every Member is supposed to be endowed with present Skill, to judge the Itinerant more gifted and gracious, and the Parish Minister less gifted or carnal, How comes it to pass, that a whole Con­gregation, when vacant, are or ought to be at a long Stand before they can possibly guess the Point; unless it be that the carnal Minister, upon his Removal, hath carried away the Urim and Thummim, out of the Bounds, among the rest of his stolen Goods; and the People, tho' they have Materials to make new ones, yet for want of a Leader, must spend a long Time in melting and forging them out? Or is this to suit their Matter to People's Inclinations, who naturally cast off, but are slow to take on them Christ's easy Yoke?

Quer. III. We grant, That the Church of Ephesus was justly commended for trying them which said they were Apostles, and were not, and for finding them Liars. Why then should those Ministers and Congregations be discommended by some, who suspect such ordinary Ministers, who put themselves in a Level with Christ's [Page 8] Apostles, if not with Christ himself, at Seasons, by pretending to an immediate Call and Mission to the Ministry, to cloak their Disorders and Want of Conformity to Gospel Rules; and pre­tend to act and think by the immediate Guidance of Divine Inspiration, to palliate Errors and Enthusiastick Rovings; yea, who pretend to have done greater Things than Raising dead Bodies, for Proof of their pretended inward Manifestations; when in Reality there is nothing done, but an artificial Raising of the tender Passions of the weaker Vessels, and making of Parties and Factions, by glaring Sights, Sounds and vain Boast­ings? Will Mr. T. tell us, what Names such high Pretenders deserve? For if by the Sons of Sceva, Mr. T. means false Pretenders to extraordinary Gifts and Works, we will readily grant, that by the Help of Scripture-Rule, by the visible Failure of their Performances, and the Names of Blasphemy written in their Foreheads, Men may do something more than give a near Guess who are such; for if there was not some sure Way to know such Impostors, how should it be impossible to deceive the Elect?

Qu. IV. Whereas Mr. Tennent affirms, That Hypocrites are against all knowing and judging of others, in order to hide their own Filthiness: What Allowance is to be made to different Climates, or whether Antipodes are endued with Dispositions as opposite as their Situations are to each other, we will leave to long Heads; but we would desire to know, in what World do those Men live, that are against all knowing of others? Can it be supposed, that Hermits and Amazons are arrived to this Pitch of Hypocrisy? Or what Sect is that among Christians, that are against all judging of others? For is not there a wide Difference between Men's being against positive and peremptory judging of Men's carnal or gracious State, and their being against all judging of others? For may not such hold their Duty to make a probable Judgment of others, without contradicting themselves in the least? May not Men be against judging the Hearts of others, because it is their firm Belief, that God alone is Judge concerning Regeneration, as to its internal real Principle and State in Men's Souls; and yet hold it their Duty to judge of its Evidences and Fruits in their external Demonstration, still leaving the Heart to God? May not Men be against making the secret State of Men's Souls towards God, the Foundation of Judgment concerning them, because secret Things belong to God; [Page 9] yet judge it their Duty so far to judge Men's Doctrines and Professions, and their Deportment, as to be able to make a probable Judgment of Men's secret State, as a Conclusion inferred from the Judgment they are called to make of the Fruits and Evidences of Grace in their external Demonstration or Appear­ance? But if it were so, that Hypocrites are against all knowing of others; how then did Jehu venture to ask Jehonadab such a dangerous Question, as, Is thy Heart right, as my Heart with thy Heart? unless he believed, that notwithstanding Jehonadab's Declaration, he was sure to remain as ignorant of Jehonadab's Heart as before? And if Hypocrites are against all judging of others, what unhappy Signs or Planets reigned in Judea in the Days of Christ's Incarnation, that had such a strong Influence upon the Scribes and Pharisees, as to over-rule their natural Bent; so that tho' Hypocrisy (of which they had a large Stock) fortified them against all judging of others; yet against Wind and Tide they judged Christ a Sinner, Deceiver, Traitor and Conjurer, &c. and damned the People that had respect to Christ and his Doctrine, for a cursed Crew that knew not the Law, Joh. 7.49. Can Mr. T. think, that he himself is more for judging others, than the Pharisees were? Nay, may we not defy the Pope to judge our Ministers more than the Pharisees judged Christ? If there be any Hopes at all of Mr. T.'s seeing his Error, may not we hope, he may soon espy it here? For doth not Scripture and Experience tell us, that it is the native Temper of the Hypocrite, to pretend to know and judge others, as well as to neglect looking into his own Heart? Mat. 7.1,—5. Is not his judging and condemning others, as well as his vain Pretence to know their Hearts, Satan-like in Job's Case, one great Part of his Art to hide his own Deformity? For how can the Hypocrite be white, unless he first casts Dirt upon his Betters, to make them look black?

Qu. V. Granting, That Thieves flee the Search by honest Men or indifferent Persons, because of their stolen Goods, and that the more they endeavour to hide, the more they expose their Shame; yet will not Thieves readily submit to be search'd by their own Familiars and Companions, and be glad of the Opportunity; because they know before-hand, that the Judgment will fall in their Favour, by their giving their Judges a Share of the Booty? And will not this be a likely Way to make a Companion pass for a legal Witness, when Trial comes? Let the Query then be [Page 10] Whether such Candidates as are unwilling to be tried and judged by indifferent Persons chosen by the Synod, but run into a favourite Presbytery, contrary to a late Agreement made in the Synod; or those that are willing to submit to Examination both by the Synod and Presbytery, look most suspicious in the Point?

Qu. VI. Is not Mr. Tennent after all the Noise made about a carnal and converted Ministry, obliged to give up the high Pretence of the spiritual Man's Ability to discern the true Chri­stian from the close Hypocrite? When after a bold towring Question, which at the Proposing of it, would seem to promise no less than a compleat Victory, viz. Doth not the spiritual Man judge all Things? Well, but will Mr. T. say, that the spiritual Man can make a positive Judgment of the secret State of Pro­fessors? No; he intends no such Thing; for doth not he answer his own Question, (1) Negatively, by saying, that he, i. e. the Spiritual Man, cannot know the State of subtle Hypocrites infallibly; (2) Positively, by proposing a very modest Question, thus, May not he, that is, the spiritual Man, give a near Guess, who are the Sons of Sceva, by their Manner of Praying, Preach­ing and Living? If it were not for what fore-goes and follows, would not this be apt to tempt a Body to think, that Mr. T. is as sober in his Judgment about judging of others, as any of his Brethren? For might it not puzzle any Body to demonstrate the Difference between near Guess and probable Judgment? Nay, of the Two, is not the latter, in Propriety of Speech, more than the former? And if this were conceded, would not the Controversy on this Head be at an End? But yet it may be said, that seeing the Scope of the whole Sermon seems to imply, that Mr. T. would have Men believe, that they may know a converted from an unconverted Minister; or else would not the main Part of the Fabrick fall? May it not therefore be objected, that we are to take Mr. T.'s near Guess in its due Connexion with what foregoes and follows? And if it be thus, must it not intend something more than a probable Judgment; or else doth not Mr. T. knock under? Supposing then, that Mr. T. by a near Guess means some Degree of Knowledge beyond a Proba­bility, as the Scope of the Performance seems to dictate, and as his Partizans seem [...]o understand the Matter; we would ask, When Pharisees in Mr. T.'s Country are orthodox, regular, as well as letter-learned; or else doth not Mr. T. either wrong them [Page 11] or the Truth? May it not be justly feared, that the near Guess which Men can make of the secret State of others, may prove to be no more than a poor blind Guess by Mr. T.'s Rule? And can it amount to any more, in an ordinary Way, than a Proba­bility at the most, by a better Rule than his seems to be as yet? What can be the Meaning of this near Guess, if not, that we may almost come to know the Matter; for what comes only near the Mark doth not hit it, be it ever so near? And after all, tho' we hasten as slowly as Tom Long the Carrier, or even as slow as the Pope with his Reformation, by putting One Hundred Years at least between every Step, and so spend the greatest Part of the Life of the Father and Son in guessing; if we can arrive no farther than a near Guess, that he is either a true Saint or a subtle Hypocrite at last; had not People much better make an exquisite Trial of what comes within the Verge of their Cognizance, and leave the rest to God? Now in making Choice of a Minister, we own, that People should consult with God by Prayer for Direction, and with God's Ministers as their Watchmen under Christ, make use of their best Judgments in trying the Suitableness and Sufficiency of the Gifts, and Sound­ness of the Doctrine, and Blamelessness of the Character and Life, and good Appearance of the Faithfulness of the Candidate; if in these he gives Satisfaction, ought not Men to judge him a gracious Man? If notwithstanding a Man's good and comforta­ble Appearance in the Particulars aforesaid, Men proceed to make Guesses of Ministers gracious or carnal States, without, beyond, or contrary to the well-grounded and considerate Judg­ment, formed upon due Trial of his Gifts, Orthodoxy, and Regularity, as aforesaid; will any tell us how it will be practi­cable to follow Gospel-Rules in the Choice of a Minister? For let us suppose for Arguments sake, even more than we can grant in the Point, that the spiritual Man can know the close Hy­pocrite from the true Christian, without seeing or perceiving any external Fruits of his Hypocrisy any way; is not the Choice of a Minister, if regularly carried on, to be the Act of the whole Congregation, and accordingly all the Male Members are to have a Vote or Voice therein? Now in Case there be any unconverted Members in the Congregation, will not these be uncapable of judging in this Matter, and of Consequence must not such be debarr'd of their Vote? And of Consequence must not the whole Choice be devolved on the converted Part, [Page 12] to judge and chuse for the Whole? But then how shall this be done? For first how shall the converted Part be known? Must not Men learn to swallow one Error after another to support a Diana? For must not Men suppose, and then believe, without and contrary to Scripture Evidence and Experience, that every one that is in a State of Grace knows it? And when that is done, must not they suppose and believe in the same Manner, that true Converts can both know another, and can distinguish them from the Unconverted? Well, Men may please themselves with these fine Notions, as thinking they have got the true Philosopher's Stone; but then, when they come to Practice, will they tell us, how shall the Unconverted again know the Con­verted, in order to chuse them for Voters? Or have true Be­lievers, or those that call themselves so, a Right to chuse a Minister for themselves and their unconverted Neighbours, be­cause all is theirs? What if the converted Part again disagree in their Choice, as Paul and Barnabas did about Mark? Or can Mr. T. think, that the unconverted Part of Nottingham, to which People this Sermon is dedicated, will freely act an im­plicit Faith in the Skill of those who call themselves converted? Or will not they rather think, that it is their inviolable Right and just Privilege to chuse for themselves? Is it not therefore evident, that such Enthusiastick Notions can serve no other End, but to build a Babel on the Ruins of a Gospel Church and Order? Besides, is it not notorious, that Candidates pass their Trials as fast and as easy (if Reports be true) in Brunswick Presbytery, as in any other in our Bounds? How else comes it to pass, that such as had no Scruples to comply with the late Act of the Synod, till they went thither, chose to pass their Trials there, when, as Things appear, there was no Probability of their settling there?

Qu. VII. Granting, that many Pharisee Teachers have got a fine long String of Prayer by Heart, so that they are never at a Loss about it; yet may not a gracious Man, that hath the Spirit or Gift of Prayer, equalize them herein? Or is a short Prayer the best Proof of the Spirit of Prayer always? Yea, grant that their Prayers and Preachings may be generally of a Length; yet will any say, that they are any Worse for that? For may not Study, Skill and Experience help the gracious Man to suit his Prayer and Sermon to the allotted Time, when he is under an Appointment to preach twice a Day, and that in two different [Page 13] Places some Miles distant one from another? Grant, that to some of his Hearers, a Man's Performances in both are as dead as a Stone, and without all Savour; may they not be lively and savoury to the Unprejudiced for all that? Was not this the Case with CHRIST and Paul? Where is the Wisdom of pelting witty Sentences or Apothegms at the Reader's Head, as Boys do Snow-balls, which with equal Ease and Execution may be retorted? For is it not easy to render trivial Matter plausible to the Ear, when we are cheated with the Charivary of sounding Brass, and the Ditty of a sounding Cymbal?

Par. II. Mr. Tennent saith, If any should object against the Stile, and says that it is too pointed; I answer, that it is no keener than the Reflections of Christ himself against the old Pha­risees. So far as I know my Heart, it is Grief for the Injuries that have been done to the Church of God by natural Ministers, that has extorted such Acrimony from my Pen.

Query I. Granting, that Christ used as keen Reflections against the Pharisees, as Mr. T. useth here; yet with what Face can Mr. T. compare the Body of the Clergy of this Generation with Pharisees, who were degenerate in Principle and Practice, yea, not only natural, but also unnatural in many Principles and Prac­tices? Mat. 15.4, 5, 6. Besides, with what Face can Mr. T. set himself upon a Par with Christ, who knew what was in the Hearts of the Pharisees, as being GOD-MAN, and therefore knew how to point his Arrow to the proper Mark, without any Danger of missing it? Is Christ's Example, or even the Example of inspired Writers, who were guided by an infallible Inspiration in pronouncing bitter Reflections or Curses against or upon par­ticular Persons, imitable by others who want such an Inspiration? Or is it not irreconcilable to the Law of Love, under which Christians are? Besides, doth not Christ point out the Crimes in Principle or Practice of those, whom he reflects upon, and not raise a general blind Out-cry against them? If Acrimony be fit for one Minister, why not for all? If for Ministers, why not for Church-Members? For are not they to follow their Leaders in what they follow Christ? Yea, may not they take a little more Liberty than their Teachers? For are not some of them well paid for their Gravity; whereas the People are obliged to be sober at their own Cost? And so who must be a Pattern of Meekness, but the poor natural Man? And how shall he be either, for he is for­bid to meddle in Things sacred? O strange! what will be the End of these Things?

[Page 14] Qu. II. May not we ask Mr. T. if he had Reason to resent the Injuries done to the Church by some natural Ministers, as he calls them, which he signifies to have extorted such Acrimony from his Pen; is the unnatural Acrimony of the spiritual Man's Words or Behaviour, or bitter Railings, and disorderly general Clamours, fit or valid Proofs of his Spirituality? Or are they fit or proper Remedies to cure the Wounds made by the Cor­ruptions of others? Or do not these smell as strong, and savour as Rank of the Flesh, as those very Corruptions Men pretend to purge by them? If some had given just Offence, doth Mr. T. do well to be angry with all, or most of his Brethren, upon this Account? Is not there a great Difference to be made between those that prove disorderly, and were rejected for their Disorders, and those that remain still orderly; albeit they differ from Mr. T. in some disputable Points, which are not as yet fully deter­mined? For may not the other Side be in the right, for aught hath appeared as yet? Have not some of Mr. T's. Opponents about the late Act of the Synod, given as good Proofs (if not better than Mr. T. or his Party ever did) of their firm Attach­ment to Truth and Order; and have they not appeared to as good Purpose as he, against the Disorders of some disorderly Brethren, who were swayed, by their Corruptions, to act like Weather-Cocks, by turning with the Tide of Lust, Gain or Ap­plause? Have not some Ministers, by their much longer stand­ing than himself in the Ministry, been a Means to convey the Truths of God to him and his Equals? And did not such deserved­ly gain a good Reputation for their Works Sake, before he came to the Stage? And consequently do not such deserve the Respect of Fathers from him? Was it any Sign of Prudence or Piety in Rehoboam to reject the Counsel of the Elders that stood before his Father, and to make young raw Novices his Counsellors? And will any tell us, what will become of Truth and Order among us now? For must not some Ministers in all Appearance make a bold Stand against the Catholick Tide of Errors and anarchial Disorders of the present Time, which are propagated among us by Mr. W. and T. and their Adherents, who make it their Bu­ssness to justify and palliate Mr. W's Errors; and to throw in some Grains of their own to make good Weight, and good Measure pressed down, to the confounding of Truth and Order? If the Injuries done by natural Men can excuse the Acrimony dropt from Mr. T's Pen, must not he bear with the Complaints [Page 15] of those that are condemned for natural Men without Proof or Trial? For doth not Mr. T. condemn the Body of the Clergy of this Generation in the Lump for Pharisees? If Injuries have been done as aforesaid, ought not Mr. T. to mourn rather than glory and be puffed up, as he seems to be? And ought not Mr. T. to take good heed to his own Ways and those of his Party, who call themselves spiritual Men, lest that they by their Er­rors, anarchial Disorders and Intrusions, do greater Injuries to the Church in a few Mont [...] than they and others can mend in an Age? And seeing there is such an Appearance of Pride, Su­perciliousness and Love of Pre-eminence, as well as of Ill will to and Contempt of his Brethren and fellow Christians, in his keen Reflections and rash Censures, is not there just Ground for Mr. T. to ask his own Heart a second Time, whether there be not some other Reason in the Matter, besides what his Heart gave him an Account of upon the first Enquiry? Did not Christ question Peter thrice? Besides, we would desire to know, how this will justify any Expressions or Practice, that is disagreeable to Gospel Rule? For did not Paul walk in all good Conscience even while a Pharisee? Acts xxiii. 1. And even when he per­secuted the Church, did not he do it in Zeal? Phil. iii 6. And may not Mr. T's Heart be a deceitful Heart as well as the Hearts of others? And will not the Disorders of those that call themselves spiritual Men in our Day be injurious to the Church, by grieving the Godly and hardening the Wicked, as well as David's Sins did of old; and the more they are palliated and justified, the more injurious still?

Par. III. Mr. Tennent vindicates his Performance against an Objection, which he foresaw might be made against it, because of its Inconsistency with Church Rules; which we suppose refers to the Encouragement he gives to People, to leave their own stated Pastors, &c. To this he offers two Things by Way of Answer, viz, 1. That there is great Difference between the flou­rishing and declining State of the Church. 2 That every general Rule admits of Exceptions.

Qu. I. Whereas all Church Rules are or ought to be well founded on Scripture or the Light of Nature, no other Rules being according to our profest Principles necessary for the Being, nor consistent with the Well-being of a Gospel Church; And if the Rules Mr. T. speaks of, be not of this Kind, but those of meer human Invention; What Need was there of an Apology [Page 16] from a Protestant Dissenter for contradicting Rules, which are professedly pronounced null and void by the whole Party, of which he is a Member? Have not we therefore just Reason to think, that Mr. T's making of such an Objection, and giving such Answers to it, supposes the Rules to be of the former Kind?

Qu. II. Whereas it seems to be agreed by all regular Reli­gious Societies, that hold Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and Practice; that it is not only l [...]wful, but also the manifest Duty of all Christians, in all their religious and civil Concerns, to act agreeable to scripture Rule; will Mr. T. tell us how this can be, but by a due and careful Application of general Rules to particular Cases, as well as by attending to the native Inferences, that by the Help of right Reason may be drawn from what is written? Is it not therefore observable, that every religious Sect or Society, in order to act harmoniously and unanimously among themselves, have in their Turn thought it necessary to agree up­on the true Meaning of Scripture Rules, or what appeared such to them, as well as to fix and frame particular Rules out of ge­neral Ones, for the well Government and Order of their Com­munity in particular Affairs? And can any doubt, but that a Community keeps within due Bounds of Christian Obedience and Liberty in this Point, when they neither claim nor use any other Power of establishing Orders, Rules, Resolutions, Agree­ments, Determinations or Acts, call them what you will, than to confirm such Determinations as upon mature Deliberation, after free and open Debate had in the most publick Judicature, be­longing to that Community in the Parts, appear to the respective Members agreeable to and deducible from the general Rules of Scripture, or else necessary in their Nature, or at the least neces­sary pro hic & nunc by Reason of some Emergency making them so, by Reason of some weighty Circumstances serving under some general Command of God, whereby they become at that Time and under such Circumstances necessary; still leaving Room to alter such Rules, in the same publick and solemn Manner, upon farther and better Light, or upon the Variation of the Circumstances of Matter by common Consent? And without a careful Observation of such established Rules, whil [...] in Force; how is Unity, Peace and Order maintainable in such a Society in Matters of common Concern?

[Page 17] Qu. III. Besides, seeing the Controversy of the Day is, in a great Measure, about the Extent of the Power of Communities, of making, forming or framing Rules for their own Society, and the Obligation of those Rules when agreed upon, we shall en­deavour to put the Matter in as fair a Light as we can, in order either to be resolved or to resolve others. We suppose it will be granted by all Hands among Non-Conformists, (1) That no Church Judicature, in making Rules, hath Power to make any thing necessary by their Determination, which is not one Way or other necessary, prior or antecedent, to such a Determination; and therefore we reject the Notion of the Power of imposing Things meerly indifferent, dubious or unlawful; but here the Query is, Whether or no Things may not become necessary for the present, by Reason of some Emergencies happening, which are not absolutely necessary in their own Nature, nor made so by any positive Law of God in particular? Yea, may not Cir­cumstances so far alter the Nature of Things, in their own Na­ture indifferent, as to make the Observation or Non-observation of them necessary in such Circumstances for the present; yea, so as to give Grounds to a Judicature, to determine the Obser­vation or Non-observation of them necessary for the present, and as such, to impose them upon their Community during present Circumstances? How else could the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem judge abstaining from Things offered to Idols, Blood and Things strangled, necessary Things? Is it not evident, that it was not their Determination, but the concurrent Circumstan­ces, that made abstaining from these Things necessary, they only judging them so, because Circumstances rendered them so? And did not they judge, that the Necessity arising from such an E­mergency gave sufficient Grounds to impose such a Canon for the present? Acts xv. 28. (2) Let it be granted, that no Church Judicature can determine any thing to be Duty, but what comes under some general Command of God, one Way or other, so that there is no Room to bring in any new Duties, Or­dinances or Orders; But yet the Query is, when the Duty is commanded plainly and expressly, but the Manner thereof is undetermined, so that there may be two or more Manners dis­junctively under the Command, so that the Duty may be per­formed this Way or that Way; whether or no some Emergencies or weighty concurrent Circumstances may not require a Judica­ture, to determine one of those different Manners preferable to [Page 18] the other, during the present Exigency, and thereupon enjoin the Observation of it for the present, until a better Expedient can be found out? For, is it not plainly demonstrable, that what is best in itself is not always the best Expedient in all Circum­stances; or else must not Necessity, that old evil and sturdy Counsellor, be forced, will he nill he, to conform unto the Law? And supposing there be two Manner of Ways of Performing a commanded Duty, if the one be either difficult, hazardous or impracticable, during the present Circumstances, when the other is easily accomplished to a good Purpose; if the one appears more subject to Abuse than the other, or hath been abused, when the other appears safer and less subject to Abuse; if the one appears more edifying than the other, or better adapted to secure the compleat and decent Performance of the Precept than the other, by Reason of some concurrent Circumstances; is it any Infringment on Christian Liberty, for any Society, in such Cases, to make it a temporary Rule for their own Com­munity, to observe that Manner of the two, which appears most apt to obtain the End, when both come under the Rule of God's Command; or to enjoin what is most expedient according to their best Judgment, during the present State of Things? If any will say, that this is assuming too great a Power in this Matter, will any tell us, where was the Church, Sect or Party of Christi­ans, that were of any Standing in the World, that have not, in their Turn, assumed as much Power as is here claimed? (3) Let it be granted, as to Rules made in Emergencies, that the Necessity must extend as far as the Determination: for if they become necessary to one particular Church, and not to another, it will not oblige the other Church to come under the Imposition, unless they come under the Necessity also: And so may not a Rule be necessary in one Time or Place, which is not so in another? (4) Let it be granted, that when the Necessity evidently ceases, the Imposition in such Cases ought also to cease, and the Mem­bers of the Church may claim it as their Right, to be relaxed of the Burden, and may reassume their former Liberty, which the present Necessity did restrain: And so, may it not be the Duty of Synods as much to repeal such Acts, when Circumstan­ces alter, as it was their Duty once to make them? May not we hence also see, that altering circumstantial Rules occasioned by Emergencies, when Circumstances alter, is so far from being inconsistent with Reason or Religion, that on the contrary, [Page 19] Men's Attachment to obsolete Canons, occasioned by particular Emergencies, in or under different Circumstances, would be a Proof of the Lameness of the one, and the ready Way to make the other to use a Crutch, when it hath no need of it. (5) Let it be granted, that no Judicature is to feign Necessities and ima­ginary Exigencies, as an Engine for ambitious Spirits, to try Conclusions upon Men's Consciences, or to practise upon Men's Tameness; and therefore the Necessity ought to be such as carries its own Evidence along with it to the unprejudiced; and that therefore Men should be fair and above Board in pointing out the Necessity, and not to depend upon a meer Determination in the Matter: For doth not Experience prove, that Sparingness in pointing out the Necessity requiring such Determinations, for Fear of offending some, hath often wronged a good Cause; and hath been a Means to help such as were disposed to quarrel, to carry their Resentments higher, to the Offence of many? If any grant, that this Power of forming Rules in religious Com­munities, should be further limited than is here specified, will they tell us what Limitations they want more? Or does our Sy­nod claim or exercise more than is here contended for?

Qu. IV. When therefore any Community, be it less or more Publick, after mature Deliberation, asking Counsel of God, and consulting with his Word and one another, do in a solemn Manner agree, that such and such Rules are Scriptural in one or other of the Senses aforesaid, and therefore meet Expedients to prevent Sin, or to preserve Order, and therefore establish them as aforesaid in their Community; how is it consistent with Reason or Religion, to suffer such Rules to be counter-acted by particular Members, without calling them to an Account? If this be allowed in such weighty Matters, as the Choice of a Minister, and the practical Dissolving of the Relation between Minister and People, after the solemn Contracting of it with uplifted Hands, Fasting and Prayer, in Obedience to Christ's Institution; why not in many more Cases of less Moment? And so, if in particular Matters, Men are allowed to multiply Exceptions, as oft as their Humours move them, of what Use or Service will the general Rule be at last, excepting only to make a fair Shew to deceive the Simple? For is it not evident, that no general Rule can be put in Execution but in particular Cases? If therefore it be necessary to make Exceptions, in any particular Case, against a general Rule established in a Com­munity, [Page 20] ought not all regular Members of such a Community apprize their respective Community of such Matters, as seem to require such Exceptions, that so the Circumstances of such Af­fairs may be ballanced and considered according to Merit, that so common Consent may be obtained for making such Excep­tions, if none be expressed in or under the general Rule already? How otherwise can Men expect to walk without giving their Brethren just Offence? Is not that Power too great which the Pope challenges, when he asserts his Right and Authority to dissolve Contracts, Relations, and Obligations, at his Pleasure, under the Pretence of the greater Good of the Church? And doth not he deserve the Title of Man of Sin upon this Account, very richly? And can any suppose, it were possible for him to impose the Belief of such a monstrous Power, if it were not, that his Followers are first possessed with another false Notion, which makes Way for this, viz. That he can forgive Sins? Other­wise would not the former be dari [...]g to Reason and Religion? And to give every Church Member such a Power as to his Re­lation to his own Minister, how monstrous doth it look in a Protestant Country?

Qu. V. That there is a vast Difference between the flourish­ing and declining State of the Church is easily granted; for doth not Experience tell us, that in declining Times there are always some ingenious Fellows, who will justify any thing that seems to serve a Turn? But then, tho' there is a Difference between Winter-frize and a Summer Suit, a Wedding Garment and a mourning Gown, and between the flourishing and declining State of the Church, will it thence follow, that Men's Obligations to observe good Rules laxen or lessen in declining Times from what they were in flourishing Times, as Mr. T. insinuates here? Will not such leaden Rules, that will gently bend with the Times, be a means, wherever they prevail, to make a crooked World ten times more crooked than it is? For what makes the Difference between the flourishing and declining State of the Church, but the careful and conscientious, and the careless and hypocritical Obser­vation of Gospel Rules and Order? Is it not therefore self-evi­dent, that the due Observation of good Rules, is the only Way to prevent and cure Declinings, unless Men would decline away the very Form of Religion, and bring it to Sun-set? In what Country was it found, that breaking thro' good Rules was a [...]ns of Reformation, much less a Step in it? Besides, is not [Page 21] our Standard of Doctrine and Discipline very good, and do not those Ministers, that are accounted carnal Men, keep to it in both, as well, if not better than Mr. T. and his Party do? And if there be any Declinings in Practice, is breaking industriously thro' good Rules the Way to mend the Matter? Will Mr. T. name the Minister of the other Side, who, in Pulpit or Press, so much countenanced breaking thro' Church Rules, as he doth here? And let him in a calm Hour consider, whether or no, such Ministers as are not content with walking disorderly them­selves only, but also in the most publick Manner industriously encourage others to break thro' good Rules, in order to make Factions and Parties, do not appear to be in as declining a State as any other whomsoever? Are not they poor Empiricks, that prescribe knocking Men on the Head, or cutting it off, to cure the Head-ach, albeit it may prove effectual?

Par. IV. Mr. Tennent adds, May the Lord scourge out Hire­lings out of his Temple, and supply you with a faithful Minister, &c.

Qu. I. As to the first Petition, viz. That God may scourge out Hirelings out of his Temple, if we consider it separately, who more willing to say Amen than we? But yet, when we consider what follows in the same Paragraph, viz. and supply you with a faithful Minister, and compare it with the Scope of the whole Performance, which is to condemn the Body of the Clergy of this Generation for Crowds of covetous Pharisees, must not the true Meaning thereof be, scourge out the Presbytery of Donnegal and their Candidates, that there may be Room for Brunswick Men, who are the only faithful Men in their own Esteem, if Fame be not a cruel Lyar? And may not Donnegal Presbytery well reply in the Apostle's Words, They zealously affect you, but not well; they would exclude US, as you have it in the Margin, that you may affect them? Gal. iv. 17.

Qu. II. If Mr. T. judges not the Workman worthy of his Hire, why doth he take it? If the Hireling be he that takes most, let the Query be, Who got most at Nottingham, in Pro­portion to his Labours, since the Decease of the late Pastor? Whether he that carries the biggest Bag under a Cloak, or he that carries a little one openly, be the Hireling? Or whether he that takes Wages at Home, and yet spends a great Part of his Time abroad, in order to increase his Wages, or he that tarries with his own Flock, as being content with a poorer Pittance by [Page 22] far, be most worthy of the Name? Is it not notorious, that Brunswick Men are as apt to remove for the Sake of richer Benefices as any other? Whether Hirelings would not take a very preposterous Method, by joining with Dissenters, to gain their End, as Matters go in most Places, albeit, Providence is to be admired in making their little much in the Enjoyment? Yet have not we Reason to be thankful for our very great Liberty, which many precious Saints were deprived of? ‘But yet, may not he gape for Dignities and Honours, till he is Chap-fallen, whose Conscience shall cast his Lot among Dissenters? And when he angled all Day, may not be come Home with a Diverb, saying, I have fished fair and caught a Frog?’

Qu. III. But to trace the Matter a little further, What sort of Creatures are these Hirelings? Have we not their Picture pretty well drawn in Mic. 3.5. Thus saith the Lord concerning the Prophets that make my People err, that bite with their Teeth, and cry Peace; and if any put not into their Mouth, they proclaim a War against them? May not a small Comment upon this Text, put the Matter in better Light, viz. Who is the Hireling, but he that causes the People to err, by encouraging them to break thro' good Rules, that bites with the Teeth of terrible Menaces and roaring Bulls? and if these tame any Asses fit for riding, will it not be Time to cry Peace, by proclaiming all tamed Creatures, Converts? But what else can be done to such knotty Pieces, as will not open their Purses or Butteries by either of these Ways, but proclaim a War against them, by damning them for a cursed Crew of carnal hard-hearted Pharisees, hypo­critical Varlets, &c.? And then it follows by the old Rule, that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks; and by the new Rule, are not all carnal Men such? For who will dare say, that there is any Difference between a carnal Man and a corrupt Pharisee? But after all, tho' these Hirelings should be scourged out of the Temple, unless the Church Doors be well guarded, and the Church Windows be well watched, that they do not re-enter by the one, nor climb up by the other; may it not be feared, that for every one that is driven out, seven will enter in at a Back-Door, as long as Catholick Anarchy prevails to keep an open Door to all Comers? And who knows but that the latter may be more hungry than the former; when 'tis well known, that Pharaoh's leaner Kine came up last? And was it not a little strange, that the ill-favour'd Kine were of such an untoward, [Page 23] envious Nature, that neither the fat Cattle, nor Joseph's Grana­ries, could make them alter their shabby Ill-favour?

Having thus taken a View of the Epistle Dedicatory and the Directions given in the Sermon, we now proceed to consider the Main of the Sermon in order.

The Text was, MARK vi. 34. And JESUS, when he came out, saw much People, &c.

We entirely agree with Mr. Tennent, That a faithful Ministry is a great Ornament, Blessing and Comfort to the Church of God, so on the contrary, that an ungodly Ministry is a great Curse and Judgment.

If we mistake not, the Consideration of the Circumstances of the Place, compared with the main Scope of the present Performance, affords us just Grounds to propose one general Query, by Way of Introduction, viz.

Query I. Whether it be not an effectual Way to comfort People, when under Sorrow for the Loss of a Gospel Minister, to possess them with the Notion, that what they lost, was not only worthless, but also their Curse, and that their Bereavement was a great Deliverance from a sore Judgment, which put them in as fair a Way to obtain a great Blessing, as Rebecca did Jacob; so that if People understood their own Good, they ought not only to bless God for the happy Change, but also to awaken a much deeper Sorrow upon the Account of the Enjoyment of what they once wrongly counted their Mercy, but really was their Curse? And so may not we learn hence the speediest Way imaginable to comfort a poor distressed Widow, bemoaning the Loss of her kind and dear Husband; for what is it but telling her, that it was her blind Love and fanciful Fondness, that made her to think much of him, when in Reality he was the sorriest Tool alive, good for nothing but to stand in the Way, and to hinder Room for a Better; or if he were not so, tell her it is her true Interest to bury the Memory of all his Endowments in the Ditch, and at least feign him to be such a one as is aforesaid now, whatever he was; for what is a dead Lyon worth? And so divert Sorrow for the Loss, with a greater Sorrow for the Enjoy­ment, during her Days of Mourning; and this will ripen for a second Match in a Hurry, when yonder brisk, topping Fellow comes, who is worth ten of what she lost. Or else let her try the Experiment; and will it not be probable, that some Body will gain his End, if the Widow be worth Money? Is this distinct Application? But to proceed.

[Page 24]Mr. Tennent's Doctrinal Proposition is, That the Case of such is much to be pitied, who have no other but Pharisee Shepherds or unconverted Teachers.

Query I. Whereas Mr. Tennent gives it as a Mark of Pharisee Teachers, That they are very indistinct in the Application of their Discourses, pag. 9. We would ask Mr. T. what sort of Teachers are those that are very indistinct in their Doctrinal Propositions? Will Mr. T. tell us, how an Error in the first Concoction can be rectified in the second? And can any be more indistinct in his Application, than Mr. T. is here in his Doctrine? For is not there a vast Difference betwen a corrupt, degenerate, blind, unnatural Pharisee Teacher, full of Bigotry to human Inventions, and an orthodox, regular, letter-learned, sober, judicious, know­ing and gifted Minister, even tho' he were unconverted? But who can prove him unconverted while such? Is there no Dif­ference between those who industriously took away the Key of Knowledge, even Scripture, to make Way for their own Tra­ditions, and those who industriously make Use of the right Key to instruct themselves and others? Is there no Difference between such abandoned Wretches, who for their sore Abuse of the Means of Light and Knowledge, were given up to Blindness of Mind, Hardness of Heart, Deafness of Ear; yea, to Pride, De­lusion and Vain-Glory, so that they became thirsty Persecutors, and virulent Opposers of Christ and his true Followers; for were not the Pharisees such? And a natural Man, orthodox in Principles, regular in Practice, endowed with a great Degree of common Gifts of God's Spirit, such as Knowledge, Convictions, &c. capable of speaking with the Tongues of Men and of An­gels, of understanding all Mysteries, and having all Knowledge? Tho' it be true that a natural Man may arrive to this Pitch; yet, who but blind Ignaroes, stuffed with Enthusiasms, will pre­tend to judge such a one a natural Man, unless some different Fruit appears? Tho' we grant, that the Want of Grace may and doth hinder his own Soul's saving Benefit; yet surely, is not there a vast Difference between the Ministry of the one and that of the other, as to others, even as much as there is between Light and Darkness, Meat and Poison, Bread and a Stone, Fish and a Scorpion, Truth and Error, and between human Inventions and divine Institutions? When therefore Mr. T. seems designed­ly or inadvertently to jumble and confound these two together, in the Doctrine, and throughout the whole Performance, mak­ing [Page 25] the Pharisee Shepherds and unconverted Teachers synoni­mous Terms; where is the Distinctness of the Doctrine or Ap­plication? We readily grant, that it would be the Duty of every one that duly regards his own Salvation, to forsake such a cor­rupt Ministry as that of the Pharisees was; but we challenge Mr. T. and his whole Tribe to shew us that Scripture, which warrants a Church-Member to forsake an orthodox, regular Minister, upon a blind Guess of his carnal or unconverted State, when there is Nothing in his Principles or Practice to support the Charge? For is it not evident, that Anarchy in Armour must be set up in God's Temple, if such a vain Opinion once prevails?

Mr. Tennent's first doctrinal Query is, To enquire into the Characters of the old Pharisee Teachers.

Qu. I. Doth not Mr. T. discover a very great Inconsistency both with Truth and himself, in drawing up the heterogeneous Character of the Pharisee Teacher? For will any tell us, how one Skin, unless it were such a Skin as Rebecca's Womb, could hold both Parts of the Pharisee Character? For if we look into the Opening of the Words, have not we there a very fair Set of Characters bestowed upon the Pharisee? viz. 1. That they were Graduates, having been at Gamaliel's Feet the usual Time, accor­ding to the Acts, Canons and Traditions of the Jewish Church. 2. They were orthodox. 3. Letter-learned. 4. Regular. Is not this enough to tempt a Man to fall in love with the fair, fair Pharisee? Who could think that the Cat and the Fiddle could by Man's Art be metamorphosed into a beautiful Lady, that had not seen it acted? And have not we here something like it in a reverse Way? For in the Space of Time that Mr. T. de­clared his Doctrine, and pointed out his doctrinal Queries, have not we a secon [...] Set of Pharisee Characters, which tho' possibly more agreeable to the Persons delineated by them; yet are not they as different from the first Set, as black and white? For what now are the Characters of Pharisee Teachers? Doth not Mr. T. tell us, that they are, 1. Pride and Self-Conceit. 2. Poli­cy and Craft. 3. Cruelty and Malice. 4. Ignorance of the New Birth. 5. Covetousness. 6. Bigotry to human Inventions and small Things. 7. Party-Zeal? Was not there some Reason why Mr. T. did not add Censoriousness to the rest, as well as some other as material Branches of the Pharisee-Teacher's Character, to make the Picture more compleat?

[Page 26] Qu. II. If Mr. T. was a weak Divine, might not such a [...] heterogeneous Draught of the Pharisee Teacher's Character tempt a Body to think, that like Hackney Versifiers and Water Poets, he makes one Verse for the Matter, another for the Rhime? If he was a wicked Man, might not he justly be suspected of having a Design against Colleges, Learning, Orthodoxy and Regularity, by ascribing these to the Pharisees, in a Time when he was go­ing to draw up an heavy Bill of Indictment against them? Or was it his Design to pay them in their own Coin, by serving them in the same ludicrous Manner that they served Christ? But when Mr. T. is a great and a good Man, at least said to be so, what can be the Meaning of this, unless it be, on the one Hand, to force the Pharisee and natural Man into an Identity, by ascribing unto the Pharisee all the Good that a natural Man may attain to, that so he might have some Colour to pelt the natural Man's Hide with all the bad Characters of the Phari­see? But yet, is not this as difficult a Task as the Blacksmith once undertook, viz. To mix the black and the white Horse, in order to make one, of a mixt Mettle, of both? Must not the Case be desperate, that requires such poor Shifts to lay a Foun­dation for it? And must not Mr. T. have some high Mark in his View, to make him undertake such an Herculean Labour as this seems to be? Could any thing less than advancing either Mr. W—d or himself into something like a papal Chair, be a Temptation strong enough for him, to possess him with such a vain Notion, as that his bold Say-so will convince the World, that the Body of the Clergy of this Generation are, 1. natural Men, and because natural Men, therefore, 2. Pharisees? Who must be the Persons chiefly levelled at, but the Body of our Sy­nod? And, is there no Difference between the Principles of dis­senting Protestants or Presbyterians and those of the Pharisees? If the Pope's first Pair of Stairs were more rotten than these, was not he a couragious Fellow to climb them up.

Qu. III. If the Pharisees were bigotted to human Inventions in Religious Matters, as ignorant of the Truth, as Nicodemus of the New-Birth, and looked upon the common People that respected Christ and his Doctrine, with an Air of Disdain, How could they be called orthodox?

Qu. IV. If Pharisees were proud, malicious, ignorant, cruel and Persecutors; how could Mr. T. pronounce them regular?

Qu. V. If they were ignorant, blind as Moles; how could Mr. T. stile them letter-learned?

[Page 27] Qu. VI. If a letter-learned, orthodox and regular Man should present himself to Brunswick Presbytery, in order to be entered upon Trials; how could Mr. T. according to Scripture-Rule reject him?

Qu. VII. Can Mr. T. or any of his Party, give any Proof to others of their qualified Fitness for the Ministry, save only what appears in their Orthodoxy, Letter-learning and Regularity? Can any Church-Judicature make any Trial of Men, but in the above Particulars? Yea, can any Judicature of Men in an ordi­nary Way, form any Judgment of the gracious State of Ministers or Church Members any other Way, but by the Evidences of Grace appearing in their Orthodoxy and Regularity? Can Men by the Declaration of their Experiences prove any Thing to others, but their Orthodoxy in such Points of Faith or Holiness as they profess Experience of?

Qu. VIII. Whether the first Set of Characters Mr. T. be­stowed upon the Pharisee Teachers, be not their feigned and not their real Characters? If any of Mr. T.'s Opposers should give such fair Characters to Pharisees, would it not be deemed Ground sufficient to call him one of them? If Mr. T. will say, that he meant no more, but that they esteemed one another such; do not Papists, and even the very worst Hereticks, count their Com­panions or Party orthodox and regular? Will that give Ground to orthodox Protestants to proclaim and assert, that they are so in their publick Sermons and printed Books? Or is not this a plain casting a Stumblig-block before the Blind to cause him to fall? Lev. 19.14. Deut. 27.18.

But to proceed to the second Catalogue of Pharisee Characters; if these were given only to the Pharisees, we might well join with Mr. T. by casting in some more, and as material Ones, to en­crease the Number; but as they are levelled against the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, particularly against the greatest Part of the Ministers of our Synod, with whom Mr. T. is at some Variance, as we apprehend the Matter; if Mr. T. or any other have aught to charge their Brethren with, should not he and they come Face to Face, name Persons and prove Charges, that so Judgment may be obtained against them according to Merit? Are not bitter outragious Railings, disorderly general Exclamations, and general defamatory Libels, as contrary to the Gospel Rules of Discipline as any other lawless Practice? But when contrary to all Reason and Equity Men are condemned [Page 28] without Proof or Trial, or even Summons to appear to answer for themselves; can any take it amiss, that we speak a Word in their Behalf? If we suffer our Ministers, who stand in the Front, to be thus unjustly condemned, what may we expect, but that our Turn will be next, if we appear for Truth and Order, against the Errors and Disorders of factious-spirited Men? We shall therefore trace Mr. T. thro' the several Branches of the Pharisee Teacher's Character, and when we have offered but a small Part of what we have to offer in the Matter, we shall leave the Unprejudiced to judge, whether Mr. T. and his Party, or his Opposers, act most conformable to the Character he assigns unto the Pharisee. When it is Mr. T.'s Turn to be Carver, can he take it amiss, that we serve his Brethren with the first Cut of Pharisee Characters? And if that will not serve him and them, is not the second Cut large enough for Mr. T. and his Party? For when he frankly bestows the first fair Set of Characters upon the Pharisees, doth not he assign over his Right to them under Hand, before a competent Number of Evidences; so that if his Brethren can but shew a better Claim to them than the Pharisees, must not the Trial or Judgment fall in their Favour? For how can Mr. T. claim Orthodoxy and Regularity in the present State of Things, when by his own Donation he hath made these the Pharisee's Property, without turning Pharisee? And will not this entitle him to the second Set of Pharisee-Characters by his own Law? To bring the Matter then to a Decision, let the Query be, whether Mr. T. who hath resigned, or his Brethren who have not resigned, have the best Title or Right in the first fair Set of Pharisee-Characters, viz. Orthodoxy, Letter-Learning and Regularity? If they have not resigned, are not they in Possession? If Mr. T. hath resigned, must not he make a new Purchase, before he can come to have a legal Possession? when therefore there is no Medium, must not giving up a Right in the first, be the procuring of a just Right in the second Set of different or contrary Characters? which are as follows, viz.

1. The first Branch of the Pharisee Teacher's Character is Pride and Self-Conceit. We grant, that the Pharisee deserved the Character; for doth not the Scripture tell us, that they were a People that trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others, Luke 18.9, — 14. But as for loving the upper­most Seats in the Synagogues, we query, whether that was a Part [Page 29] of the Character of that proud Sect, and not the peculiar Character of the Pharisee Teachers? For doth not Reason and Scripture both allow, that the Pulpit should be higher than the common Seats? For did not Ezra stand upon a Pulpit of Wood, and was he not higher than the People? Neh. 8.4, 5. Or will Men condemn Ezra for a wicked Pharisee, because he was a Scribe? Would not that Man make himself ridiculous, who would call Mr. T. a proud Pharisee, because when preach­ing, he maketh Use of a Pulpit within Doors, or a proper Stage or Balcony without, higher than the People, that his Auditors may hear the better? And doth not Mr. T. accept of the Title of Master, by way of civil Respect, and can he say, that others have done more, or contested with any about it? Or would Mr. T. that others should reject it, that he may wear such Feathers solely in his own Cap? Can Mr. T. with all his Skill in Rheto­rick tell the World, what is that material Difference, that is between him and the Body of the Clergy of this Generation in such Matters? Where then is the Edification of turning Scripture thus into an empty Sound, by quoting it to no Purpose, but to amuse the Weak, by making People believe that the Point is proved, when it is only darkened and palliated with Sounds? Who are more masterly and positive in their Assertions than those, who strive to advance mere and false Opinions into the Rank of Articles of Faith, such as, 1. That every one that is in a State of Grace, knows it. 2. That we must know, that our Mini­sters are truly gracious, before we can know that they are called of God to the Ministry. 3. That a Minister must have Assurance that he is converted, before he can know that he hath a divine Call to the Ministry. 4. That a Minister must know that Christ is formed in the Hearts of his Hearers, before he can take Com­fort that he doeth Good. Will Mr. T. tell us, whose Mark or Inscription have these? and how can these be proved? Who are those that look upon others that differ from them with more Air of Disdain, than those who (like the old African Conven­ticle, much reviled and much imitated, who monopolized Sal­vation to those that were of Donatus's Part) condemn all that differ from them, and judge them accursed, carnal, hypocritical Varlets, Pharisee Teachers, covetous Locusts, &c.? Is there not a remarkable Air of Disdain in these opprobrious Names, as well as in calling Men Dupes, Dunces, dead as Stones, blind as Moles, stone blind, stone dead, how can these be politick? Whereas [Page 30] as Matters go, is it not Men's Unhappiness, if we may so call it, that they cannot wink so hard, as to overlook Mr. W—d's and T.'s Errors and Anarchies? For is it not Matter of Fact, that those who embrace crude Nonsense with an implicit Faith, are proclaimed knowing Men? If there be any Writings penned by the other Side, that have more or half as much of an Air of Disdain, than this Sermon seems to have, let them be produced; for if any other bids more Gentleman-like for this Part of the Pharisee-Character than Mr. T. Would it not be Justice to adjudge it to him?

2. The second Branch of the Pharisee-Teacher's Character, is Policy and Craft: We hope it will be allowed by all, that to be wise as Serpents, and innocent as Doves, is wholesome Coun­sel; but yet is not Craft another Thing? Did not he speak home to the Point, tho' he spoke roughly and in haste, who said, You shall not meet with a Man in a Thousand, but will liberally rail at damned Machiavelian Policy, which yet according to the Pro­portion of their little Wit, they strive to imitate; which tempts me to think, that they hate not so much his Knavery, as they repine at their own Folly; and judge not his Politicks so evil, as they are vex'd that they cannot equalize him; they nibble at his Principles, because they cannot reach his Wit. Might not a Man know by this Man's Words, that he was a politick Hugonot? Did not Satan more befool the Pharisees, by tempting them to ensnare Christ with their captious Questions, than they discovered their Policy in the Fact? Was not that less politick, than if they had attempted to bind Sampson with Tow-yarn? And are not they as unpolitick, that attempt to build their Nests high upon the Ruins of the Goverment and Order of God's House, as well as of their Brethren's Characters, by putting themselves and others in false Colours? For is not this kicking against the Pricks? But who are those, that are most industrious to get the Applause of the Populace, and use most Craft, and sly and sneaking Methods, to keep the People in their Interests? What else but this is the meaning of Men's intruding into Vacancies in the Bounds of other Presbyteries, into dissatisfied Corners of settled Congre­gations, and their creeping into Houses to lead captive the Silly? What means the Noise made of Catholicism and Refor­mation, as if Reformation consisted in an Indifferency about Truth and Order, and in Men's becoming such Latitudinarians, as to have a Conscience of between 70 and 80 Degrees of South [Page 31] and North Latitude; or in making the Church Doors wide enough to let in all Preachers, tho' never so erroneous and dis­orderly? as if it was our Duty to keep fair Play between God and the Devil, without siding with the one more than the other; or as if Reformation consisted in changing Sides and Guides, and becoming Fire and Tow for Party, but as cool as Patience itself in the concerning Truths of the Gospel, or even in be­coming disorderly? What mean the disorderly general Ex­clamations and Defamations of pious Ministers, Pharisee like? What means the smoaky Whiff of pretended Charity, whereby Men profess a Willingness to die for their Auditors, whom it may be they never saw before, nor have had any intimate Converse with them either before or after? Do not Men betray an high Degree of Ignorance, if not what is worse, by pronouncing such glaring empty Expressions? And do not others discover an high Degree of Silliness by admiring such vain Flatteries? For who can be so ignorant, that allows himself to think, but may pre­sently know, that Saying is easy; Doing, hard; Suffering, much harder, and Suffering unto Death, such sweating Work as the Living cannot well form proper Conceptions of, nor of their own Strength to go thro' it, while it is out of Sight and unfelt? For is not the best Man at the best Vanity and Nothing, and less than Nothing too? Besides is not Ability to suffer for Christ, the Gospel, or his Church, a peculiar Gift? Phil. 1.29. Can any suppose that God gives this peculiar Gift to any in quiet and peaceable Times, wherein Men have not the least Call to Sufferings? Can any expect that ordinarily God will impart to us any more, than Grace to help in a Time of Need? Heb. 4.16. Can any think that the highest Stock of inherent Grace, that ever a meer Man was endowed with, is sufficient to make one stand in a suffering Hour, without a suitable Supply from without of exciting and assisting Grace? When therefore the Ignorant fondly admire such glaring, empty Expressions; must not the understanding Hearer have a vast Stock of Charity, before he can believe, that such frothy Preachers are as much as orthodox in Principle, with respect to Sufferings, when their Mouths utter such Expressions as savour so rankly of Ignorance and vain Confidence? Doth not the Devil preach more ortho­doxly than this in Job 2.4.? What mean the vain-glorious Boastings of themselves, and the high Praises Men bestow upon one another in Publick? Who useth most of Absalom's Wiles in [Page 32] the Gate, to ingratiate themselves with the People? What means the Outcry made of the Church's Danger, because of her present Guides; and the Terrors and Flatteries sounded? If the People's Favour be the main Chance; who hath obtained most Success in securing this as Proofs of their Diligence? Have other Ministers used the same Wiles in the Bounds of Brunswick Presbytery, which tho [...]e Gentlemen used elsewhere?

3. The third Branch of the Pharisee-Teacher's Character, is Cruelty and Malice. Will it not be hard for Mr. T. to instance any Acts of Cruelty, which the protestant Clergy of this Gene­ration, of any Denomination, have committed against any upon the Account of Religion, in our English Dominions? And is it not notorious, that edged Tools are pretty well taken out of their Hands? And have not many of them, of all Denomina­tions, given good Proofs of their being Men of a quiet, peaceable and harmless Disposition, by their meek and inoffensive Behaviour? And for all, that some of them, as well as of other Ranks, are fiery Zealots and Make-bates, will not the Body of the Clergy of this Generation afford a very considerable Number, that may justly be called merciful Men? We hope that all orthodox Christians will own, that to assert Truth, to confute Er­rors, to stop the Mouths of Gainsayers, to reprove the Unruly, to comfort the Feeble-minded, to support the Weak, to com­mand the Observation of Christ's Commands, and even to take the little Foxes, that creep in thro' Holes to spoil the Vines, is a commendable Practice in Gospel Ministers; But who are those, that breath forth most of the Cruelty of Wolves, by an im­prudent and an uncivil denouncing of Terrors, by damning and devilizing Men, giving the Devil more than his just due? Who are those that discover most Malice, by aspersing their Brethren, dressing them in Wolves Skins, by crying out Pha­risees, carnal Hypocrites, Ahitophels and Locusts; drawing their presumptuous Censures thro' the very Hearts of their Oppo­sers, even when they are in the Right in opposing them; tearing their Characters, marring their Usefulness, disquieting their Peace, encouraging their People to leave them without any just Reason for it, fomenting Factions, to the occasioning the Removal of some Ministers from their People, and the disheart­ening of others? Was not it an Instance of some Cruelty, that some were guilty of, if Fame be not a Lyar, who were indus­trious to hinder the Reception of a Minister in a second Place, [Page 33] when he was driven by a Storm of Contention from his proper Seat? What is that Truth or Power of Religion, that the other Side have opposed? Where have People been opposed in any of the regular Exercises of Piety? Can Mr. T. give any Instance of a Minister of the contrary Side, who rashly judged their, or any of their spiritual State? And had not they a just Call to speak against what was unsound in their Doctrine, as well as uncharitable and disorderly in their Conduct, when contrary to God's Word?

4. As to Ignorance of the New-Birth. Hath Mr. T. or his Party advanced the least Tittle or Scrap of divine Truth or Ac­curacy in that Point, or any other Point of Divinity beyond what his Opposers did? Will not his Brethren, at his Invitation, be willing to confer with him on the Head, and compare Notes, whether he will privately or publickly? Or if they will not, should not Mr. T. acquaint the Publick in Print, what are the Truths, relating to the New-Birth, which others oppose? Doth not Mr. T. discover an intolerable Air of Disdain, if not some­thing that is worse, in his calling his Brethren's Preaching, when according to his own Concession they do it orthodoxly, Prating? For is not this casting Contempt on God's own Ordinance, when rightly administred? If Mr. T. hath a Mind to divert himself, let the Query be, whether the old or new Method of Preaching be most like Prating? And may not the next be, Whether a great Part of the late Sermons of some be not down­right Scolding and Railery, unfit for the Stage, much more so for the Gravity of the Pulpit? Did not he speak pretty well home to the Point, who said, He that will call Preaching Pra­ting, will hardly scruple to call my Ears Horns? What then?

5. As to Covetousness, hath Mr. T. or his Party ever refused to take a good Salary, when they could catch it? Or did they ever refuse a Place upon the Account of the Greatness of the Salary? Or have they been out of Humour, when Money was offered them? Will not Pockets sometimes receive Money, without defiling Men's Hands with such Trash? Have not some of these Gentlemen removed from the Places where they were first settled, in order to better themselves that Way as well as others? If all was known, would it not be merry Work to talk of great Salaries among Dissenters; for are not these almost as rare as black Swans? Have not others accepted of, and content­ed themselves with as small Salaries as any of these? Have these [Page 34] Gentlemen any settled Minister in their Bounds, who received no more Salary from his People than between Eight and Ten Pounds this last Year, and the Year before last, no more than Thirteen or Fourteen Pounds, and for several Years past no much more? Will they send some of their able Hands, to take such bulky and rich Benefices, if we tell them where they can get them? Is not there great Reason, why such Ministers should be very careful to keep the People to their Favour? Or if their People should combine with Mr. T. or his Party against them, can it be supposed, that they will speak a Word against them for fear of losing their Bread? Or will not such bold Fellows, that have little or nothing to lose, sing boldly, when they see the Robbers coming, and whet their Knives at the Counter against the common Vogue, because their Interest that Way is so low, that they are wholly out of Fear about it? If it be true, as Mr. T. seems to insinuate, that the one fixeth his Eye on the Bag is it not notorious, that the other fingers the Money in their own Bounds, in Vacancies, faster and plentier than they? And whe­ther the feeling of a full Purse, be not a better Prize to the co­vetous, than the Sight of an empty Bag? Have the other Side entered into these Gentlemen's Labours, as they did into those of others, in order to get more Money? Or have not the most able Places got most Visits from Itinerant Ministers, when the Places that were wholly destitute of Preaching before, are neg­lected, except they lie in the Way to the Carcass? Was not the Invention of Bell's Priests to get a rich Maintenance, under the Notion of Sacrifices to hungry Bell, a cunning Trick? And may not crafty Pharisees invent something like it in these latter Days, which will bring in Money by the Hundreds? And will not Mr. Receiver fare the better of that, tho' Mr. Somebody gets Part of the Booty? But who more blind than they that will not see? Would it be any Breach of our Charter, if an Office was erected with proper Officers, to make a Cry in the Camp to all well disposed Persons, Who will throw in, throw in their Mites, to release a penny Prisoner out of Turkish Slavery? How can this be done without a round Sum to purchase or hire a Vessel for the Voyage, as well as to fit her with a proper Cargo to de­fray accruing Charges?

6. As to Bigotry to human Inventions and small Things: Was it any Fault in the Pharisees to be zealous and precise in small Matters? For doth not our Saviour say, these Things ye ought to [Page 35] have done, as to their tithing Mint, Anise and Cummin? Matth. xxiii. 23. And yet doth not Mr. T. seem to draw the Indict­ment against this Part, page 6. albeit he quotes the Verse that contains their omitting the weightier Matters of the Law, which appears to us to be the main Thing reproved? Let the Query then be, Whether their swallowing the Camel or their straining at a Guat was the Sin? Or is any-body obliged to swallow a Guat, because it is small? Is not the Authority great, when the Things in themselves, prior to God's Commands, are but small? Is not this to be seen plainly in Adam's first Sin? And as to Bigotry to human Inventions, if Mr. T. hath aught to charge his Brethren with on that Head, ought not he to descend to parti­culars, and speak out, that they may be either foiled or cleared? In the mean Time, will he tell us, what but human Inventions or worse, are, 1. The general, disorderly and seemingly malici­ous Exclamations against Ministers in the Lump; 2. The Pre­tence of positive judging Men's carnel or gracious States, by or upon Men's Declarations of their Experiences, and erecting So­cieties for this Purpose, as one main End of them; 3. The vain Pretence of ordinary Ministers to an immediate Call to the Mi­nistry; 4. The industrious hiding or concealing of Gospel Pro­mises, or the Grace thereof, for a Time, from convinced Sin­ners, in order to raise their Terrors and Distractions higher by the Law; 5. Their sending Missionaries into Vacancies in the Bounds of other Presbyteries, without their Invitation, and a­gainst their declared Judgment, without as much as hearing their Reasons, or striving to satisfy their conscientious Scruples in the Matter; is not this Lording it over their Brethren with a Wit­ness? Is not such a Practice not only inconsistent with our Con­stitution, but also a Violation of the Rights and Order of all regular Societies in the general? Is not Gospel Liberty a Right or Privilege to observe, and not to destroy Gospel Order, much less can it be a Liberty to set up Anarchy in its Room? Should not Dissenters, who plead for Liberty of Conscience, let the World see and know, that they want not an universal Toleration of all Things; but a well bounded Toleration to discharge their Du­ties to God and Man in their proper Places, Callings and Rela­tions, without disturbing others in their proper Stations? 6. What but an human Invention, is a Non-resident, indefinite Mi­nistry? For is it not easy to shew, that it is subversive as of Gospel Order, so of a Gospel Ministry? For either Men must [Page 36] own, that a stated Ministry is God's Ordinance, or not: If they say not, doth not their own Practice contradict that? If they own it to be so, are not Gospel Ordinances not only institutive of themselves, as requiring their own Observation; but also exclusive, not only of what is directly opposite to them, but also of collateral Institutions set up in Opposition to them? For how can there be Room to set up an itinerant Ministry, where there is a stated orthodox Ministry already, without setting up Threshold against Threshold, and Altar against Altar? And how can there be Room for that, unless there be such weighty Differences between both, as will afford at least one Side just Causes of Separation? And supposing there be just Causes of Se­paration, must not Men, before they regularly clear the Way for it, use Gospel Methods, by treating with their Brethren in a Christian Way and Manner, in order to try all proper Measures of God's Appointment, to remove their conscientious Differen­ces, whether by their own Resolution or Conviction, or that of others? If Men divide abruptly without Cause, or if they have just Causes of an orderly Separation, without trying orderly Me­thods to remove such Causes, if possible, as aforesaid; How can they clear themselves of being guilty of making Schisms? For does not a different Manner, as well as different Grounds or Matter, alter the moral Nature of an Action?

7. As to Party-Zeal; Who are those that encompass Sea and Land most, to make Proselytes? Doth not Mr. T. seem quite to forget himself in such left-handed Pushes? And is it not noto­rious, that many of Mr. W's and T's blind Admirers, for we do not see how we can call them Followers, are worse than their Teachers, being more full of Ignorance, blind Zeal, Fury and Censoriousness, as well as vitious, many of them? How then do some justify those Errors of W—d, which he himself con­demned? And how had a certain Minister of the opposite Side, in one Night, his Meeting-house broken open and abused, in which Action there was no less than breaking two Locks; and in another Night had his own House broke open, when it was not known, that he had any Controversy with any; but upon the Account of the late Scheme and anarchical Practices? Who are those, who tho' they profess great Love to pious dead Pro­phets, and other Reformers, yet condemn the Body of the Cler­gy of this Generation for Pharisees, one while, another while ranking them with Baal's Priests, when 'tis well known, that a [Page 37] great many of the Clergy of this Generation lay and hold no other Foundation but that of the Apostles and Prophets, in Doc­trine and Disciple? And is it not easy to shew, that they keep closer to it than such rash Censurers? For is it not evident, that Mr. W. and T. build more Hay and Stubble than many of the other Side, as we have partly shewn already; and will not this prove it more, if it comes to Light? Have not some Ministers of the other Side, had their Characters blackened, by alledging, that they denied the Doctrine of Assurance, and all sensible O­perations of the Spirit, for no other Reason, but because they asserted, That every true, tho' weak Believer, is not assured of these Things in himself? Is it not one Thing to feel Operations in the general, and another Thing to know, that such Operati­ons as they feel, are special and saving Operations and not com­mon ones? And whereas Mr. T. justly observes, That the Pha­risies pretended a mighty Respect for the Sabbath, insomuch that they charged Christ with the Breach of it, for doing Works of Necessity and Mercy; but in reality, that not so much Respect to the Sabbath, as Malice against Christ, was the Occasion of the Charge, they wanted a plausible Pretence to offer against him, in order to blacken his Character: What mean the late general Exclamations against carnal Ministers, and the general Libels exhibited in the Synod, when at the same Time the Subscribers are unwilling to let their Brethren have fair Trials in proper Judicatures, if it be not a Design to blacken Men's Characters? Yea, what mean the Outcries made against the Synod's late Act, as if Men were very tender of the Rights of Presbyteries, when to use Mr. T's own Words; must not he be blind that doth not see, that Brunswick Presbytery, by their disorderly Intrusions, in­vade the Rights of other Presbyteries, more than the Synod could by Ten such Acts? For do not they do this without any Order or Measure? What was the Reason, why the Arians reproach­ed Athanasius's Person, the Pelagians Augustine's Person, the Pharisees Christ's Person, and the Papists the Hugonots; but be­cause they could not stand before their Arguments? What was the Reason, when the Jesuit wanted to nick an Hole in Cal­vin's Coat, he took the hind Quarter, silently behind his Back? What is the Reason of the general Outcries made of Ahitophels, Ahitophels, in publick Sermons, as well as some Men's Unwilling­ness to argue the Point fairly Face to Face, and the publick Warnings given to their blind Adherents, not to speak with [Page 38] carnal Men, unless it be Men's Consciousness of the Weakness of their own, and of the Goodness of their Antagonist's Cause? For when there are Men of Learning on both Sides, can any think, that Grace extinguishes Reason now, no more than it did it in Christ and in his Apostle's, who silenced Gainsayers to the Face for all their silly Craft? And if Men had such high Degrees of the Spirit of Wisdom, as they sometimes pretend to, would not they do the same with Ease to Men's Faces, without being obliged to use such silly and sinful Shifts, as general Cla­mours and blind Pushes, without naming particular Persons or Crimes?

Doth not Mr. T. omit as material Branches of the Pharisee Teacher's Character, as any he mentions, if not more material Ones: For,

Qu. I. Doth not their very Name shew, that they were a Sect of precise, vain-glorious Separatists? And doth not Scrip­ture shew, that they were a Self-righteous Sect, that despised others? Luke 18.9. Did not their Principles, who were full of Self-conceit of their own Holiness, incline them to despise others? And do not Histories tell us, that they counted the common People the Men of the Earth, reckoning them as the Dung thereof, judging them Sinners and prophane, yea even accursed, because they knew not the Law, i. e. as to their corrupt Glosses upon it, counting none Saints but such as followed them, pronouncing Damnation to all others? Doth not their Practice of forbearing to eat with the Vulgar, and of their washing of their Hands when they came from the Market, shew that they were very precise, and what contemptuous Opinions they enter­tained of the common People, as if they were unclean and polluted? And is it not remarkable, that their abusing the common People at an odd Rate, by casting Disdain and Con­tempt upon them, when it was done under the vain and specious Pretence of Religion, drew the People after them in Droves, they being above all others in their high Esteem and Veneration; when the honest Karraites, that stood up for the People's Pri­vileges, by rejecting and opposing their vain and burdensome false Traditions, were scorned and despised? And may not this help to lessen our Admiration, that after this the whole World wondred after the Beast, who abused them at an odder Rate? Rev. 13.3. And if such a Thing should happen in these latter Days, will it not be a Sign of greater Darkness than Light? [Page 39] How much of the like Principles appears in Men's publick, clamorous, and vain-glorious Boastings of their high Degrees of Grace, Comforts, Experiences, Feelings, and their Out-cries against others, that speak against such Practices, calling them carnal Men and Hypocrites, we leave others to judge at their Leisure. Is not there a Spice of the same Spirit to be seen in the Practice of some Ministers, who refuse to assist their Brethren at the Sacrament, and to communicate when present, and assist­ing in preaching, upon a vain Conceit of their own Holiness, and others being carnal Men; when for aught that appeared before or after, they could not fix a Charge against them in Principle or Practice; nor advance any Thing but their own Notions and Boasts, true or false, to render themselves preferable to others? Is not this plainly making vain Opinions or Traditions a Rule, when Scripture is wholly laid aside? Would not Men of such Principles, if once they had the Upper-hand, soon cast others out of their Synagogues, when they thus excommunicate themselves from God's Ordinances, in order to cast an Odium upon their Brethren? And what but a Desire to undermine and to cast them out of their own Synagogues, can tem [...] Men to creep into disaffected Corners of their Brethren's Congregations in such a disorderly Way as this is done?

Qu. II. Was not Censoriousness or rash judging of Men's carnal and gracious State, according as they found them by their Declarations, affected or disaffected to their Party and Traditions, another notable Branch of the Pharisee-Teacher's Character? For did not they boldly and loudly call Christ a Sinner, a Sab­bath-breaker, a Glutton, a Wine-bibber, a Samaritan that had a Devil, a Deceiver, and a Companion of Publicans and Sinners, because he opposed them, and chose Unbelievers that were kind to him for his Companions, by going frequently into their Houses and Company, albeit this proved to be for the Conversion of some such? Now when they called the Master of the House Beelzebub; what could be expected, but that they would have called them of his Houshold petty Devils? Mat. 10.25. Did not the Pharisees agree to cast all out of their Synagogues, who would own Christ to be the Messiah? John 9.22. Did not the Pharisees as roundly pronounce the People that respected Christ and his Doctrine, a damned, cursed Crew, and as blind Men that knew not the Law, as others do the Adherents of their Opponents, in some Points, carnal Men, Dupes and Dunces, blind [Page 40] as Moses, dead as Stones, silly Souls, poor Fools? Would not a few more Names be enough to make up a Welshman's, or even an Irishman's Pedigree? May not we then desire Mr. T. to put on a Pair of Spectacles, and to turn the Crow's Eggs, that he may view the other Side of them? For may not a second Sight as well as Thought, alter the Matter?

Qu. III. Was not their broad Phylacteries another Characte­ristick of that proud Sect? And do not others make as vain a Shew in Journals and Gazettes, proclaiming their own Sanctity as the Pharisees did?

Qu. IV. Was it not another Peculiarity of the Pharisees, that they lade Men with heavy Burdens, but did not touch them them­selves with one of their Fingers? And do not we need a large Stock of Candour, to keep up a good Opinion of Men's Expe­riences of Soul Trouble, who industriously labour to raise high Degrees of Terror in weak Christians, and rejoice to see them distracted with Shocks and Terrors? Can such sneering Joy consist with a Fellow-feeling Sympathy with such Souls, in the Heart of an experimental Christian?

Qu. V. Was not the Pharisees shutting the Kingdom of Heaven against themseves and others, by corrupt Doctrine and Practice, by destroying the Law by their corrupt Glosses and vain Traditions, and the Gospel by their striving to establish Self-Righteousness in Point of Justification, a main Branch of the Pharisee Character? Luke xi. 52. how else did the Pharisees take away the Key of Knowledge? Besides, were not the Phari­sees Statesmen as well as Churchmen in our Saviour's Time? And do not those that alledge, that every one that is in a State of Grace, knows it; which is as much as to say, he is assured of it; when at the same Time many of such will own, that they have not Assurance themselves; at least doctrinally shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against themselves, and all such weak and doubting, tho' true Christians, that are in the Dark about their State, and even against such strong Christians, as have arrived no higher than a well-grounded Hope thro' Grace? And do not such fasten Terrors in the Hearts of the Righteous, whom God would not have made sad? Besides, tho' the Pharisees cried up Tenderness of Conscience abroad; yet were not they all for blind Obedience at home? For without this, would not they carry their vain Traditions to a poor Market? And must not all, that take up with enthusiastick Notions, be as much for [Page 41] blind Obedience at Home, as the greatest Masters of Ceremo­nies and Traditions, for all the seeming Difference of both at the first Sight? And in one Word, what is Pharisaism but Ir­religion dressed with a Cloak of Fervency against Atheism? Had Mr. T. insisted but a little upon and displayed the Leaven of the Doctrine of the Pharisees, how easily might he have proved, that such People are to be pitied, who have no better than old Pharisee Teachers? And so, would it not follow, that if others now symbolize with them in Doctrine and Practice, that the Case would be plain? Which leads us to the second Doctrinal Query, viz. Why such People, who have no better than old Pharisee Teachers, are to be pitied?

We could easily give our Assent to the Proposition contained in said Query, viz. That such People as aforesaid are to be piti­ed, without any Proof at all; but yet, hath not the Impertinen­cy and Weakness of Mr. T's Proofs a native Tendency to render the clearest Truth more suspected, than it was in its own proper Light? For is it not evident, that Mr. T. spoils it in the Proof, by the same Indistinctness which we have shewn to be in the Doctrine, viz. His confounding the natural Man and the Pha­risee Teacher, as if they were one and the same? Or rather doth not he in the Proof quit the Pharisee Teacher with his leavened Doctrine, and draw his Arguments wholly from the Defects and Danger of the natural Man's Ministry? We would be glad to know, what was the Reason, when the Pharisee Teacher was tied fast to the Stake in the Query, that Mr. T. in the Proof puts the natural Man to do Penance, and to bear all the Blame, the Pharisee Teacher having no more but a By-blow at the most? Must not the Reason of this be, because Mr. T. either respected the Pharisee Teacher more, or hated him less, than those he calls natural Men, or rather would call so? We own it would have been an easy Matter, to prove many of the Pha­risees by all Appearance natural Men; yea, and that some of them were very unnatural too; but yet, would it not be too great a Task to prove, that natural Men are or were Pharisees? [...]ut according to Mr. T's Way of Arguing, ought not he to prove the latter? Or else, what doth he but amuse his Reader, confound the Matter, and lose himself in the Labyrinth? We grant, it was an easy Matter to know, who was a Pharisee, for that Sect, as well as other Sects, was distinguishable from others by their proper Tenets; but will any say, that it is as easy to [Page 42] know who is a natural Man, as who is a Papist, Churchman or Presbyterian? Might not a natural Man be a Sadducee, Ess [...], Karraite, or even a Christian? And does Mr. T. think, but that a natural Man may be a Catholick, Whitefieldian or Ten [...] ­nite; yea, for aught any or all their warm Admirers or even themselves can prove to others, may not this natural Man be Mr. W. or T. themselves? where then is Distinctness now?

1. The first Argument then to prove, that such People, who have no better than the old Pharisee Teachers, are to be pitied, is, 1. Because natural Men have no Call of God to the ministerial Work, under the Gospel Dispensation. If this were true, how doth it prove the Point? For may not a natural Man's Minis­try, if he be orthodox, vastly differ from an heterodox Pharisee's Ministry? Yea, doth not a private Conference with a private Christian, or even bare Reading of Scripture by private Chris­tians, or even reading of good Sermon Books vastly excel a Pha­risee Teacher's Ministry? And if a Minister be gifted and sound in the Faith, as well as regularly called, is not there a vast Dif­ference between the Ministry of one that preaches sound Scrip­ture Doctrine, and one that preaches vain Traditions and cor­rupt Glosses!

But before we come to the Point, we may premise a few Things to prevent Mistakes: We do then freely grant, 1. That Grace is absolutely necessary to make a Man a true Christian, and none doubts, but that a Minister should be a true Christian; nor do we suppose, that any among us will say, that without true Grace any can fulfil his Ministry acceptably, as to himself; and therefore it is very evident, that no Man can be looked upon, as fit to be called to the Ministry, but such as are esteemed gracious Men: So that it is not our Aim, in the least, to plead for an unconverted Ministry; for we are against having such as much as Mr. T. And if Mr. T. undertakes to prove any of our Ministers such, we promise upon good Proof made, to reject them forthwith; but the Query is, Who are to be esteemed carnal Ministers, or how to know them? 2. We grant, that it is the unquestionable Duty of every private Christian, much more of a Christian Minister, to examine himself about his State oft, and to labour diligently in the Use of appointed Means, to attain all possible Evidences of their gracious State. 3. That the Ordainers of Persons to the Ministry, should make an ex­quisite Trial of the Gifts and Orthodoxness of Candidates to the [Page 43] Ministry, as well as make a due Enquiry into their Deportment and Conversation, and should by no means call or ordain any, but those who by their Gifts appear apt to teach, and who in their Profession and Conversation carry a fair and good Appea­rance of gracious Men, so that the Ordainers are in Conscience satisfied, that all Things considered, it looks at least probable, that they are such, still leaving the positive Judging of Things secret to God, to whom it alone belongs. But then,

Qu. I. Doth not Mr. T. allow, that even the spiritual Man cannot infallibly know the States of subtle Hypocrites; but only make a near Guess of it at the best and furthest, as we have noted already? And doth he here also allow, that Men may put a natural Man into the Ministry, not only thro' Unfaithfulness, but also thro' Mistake, i. e. as we understand him, tho' they act a faithful Part? page 8.

Qu. II. Seeing therefore there are but two Sorts of a Call to the Ministry, viz. one immediate to extraordinary Offices, both which Call and Offices are now long ago ceased: Can any ordi­nary Ministers in Faith expect any other Call to the Ministry now, but only a mediate Call, wherein God makes Use of the Ministry of Men, as the immediate Agents in said Call? And when those that are authorised by God for this Purpose, do in the Simplicity of their Hearts act according to their best Light, in Christ's Name, and according to his Institution, in calling any into the Ministry, wherein Ministers act ministerially, with the Concurrence of the People, inviting or calling in a Way of Gos­pel Privilege or Obedience to Christ; Is not every one that is thus called according to Gospel Rule, at least mediately called of God? What then will become of the Distinction Mr. T. makes between a divine and human Call to the Ministry? For what but an human Call is the divine mediate Call to the Mi­nistry?

Qu. III. Seeing many profess at Seasons, that Mr. W's At­tachment to the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England, is the Grounds of their high Regard for him, we would ask Mr. T. how he approves of the latter Clause of the Twenty-third Arti­cle of the English Church, which Clause, if we mistake not, is subscribed to by all the orthodox dissenting Ministers in England? The Clause runs thus, And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this Work by Men, who [Page 44] have publick Authority given unto them in the Congregation, [...] call Ministers into the Lord's Vineyard.

Qu. IV. If fallible Men, acting according to Scripture Rule, without any more, at the most, than the ordinary Guidance of God's Spirit, are the Instruments or immediate Agents in this mediate Call; can Mr. T. assign any solid Reason, why may not a natural Man have a mediate Call to the Ministry, as well as an unconverted Judas had an immediate Call to an Apostleship?

Qu. V. What is the Call of God to the Ministry? Is it not some publick authoritative Declaration of God's Will concern­ing the Person to be employed in the Ministry, requiring and commanding him to take this Office upon him, and investing him with Authority to discharge it, requiring also the Church, over which he is set, to hear and obey him, as an authorized Minister of Jesus Christ and their proper Watchman?

Qu. VI. Whereas therefore Mr. T. in p. 7. asks this Query, Isn't it a principal Part of the ordinary Call of God to the ministe­rial Work, to aim at the Glory of God, and, in Subordination thereto, the Good of Souls, as their chief Marks in their underta­king that Work? We answer, that this is no Part of the divine Call to the Ministry, much less is it a principal Part of it; but the Duty of the Person called: The Call is God's Act either immediately or mediately, but this Aim is the Act of the Can­didate in Obedience to the divine Call, whereby God calls Per­sons not to be Ministers, but Christians; for isn't it the Duty of all Christians, as well as Ministers, to aim at God's Glory, &c.? And can any think, that what is the Duty of all Christi­ans in common with Ministers, is any Part of the Call to the Ministry, which is a peculiar Office belonging to some only in the Church and not to all? And therefore we would ask Mr. T. again,

Qu. I. Whether or no the Candidate ought not to have this Aim, if he acts conscientiously, before a Call be given him? Yea, whether or no he may not have this sincere Aim many Years before a Call be given him? Yea, may not this Aim be in some who never receive a Call, by Reason of some providen­tial Lets, tho' such a Call was really once designed both by themselves and others?

Qu. II. If the Call to the Ministry consists principally in such an Aim, as is aforesaid, will it not follow, that every Godly Man hath a Call to the Ministry? For will Mr. T. say, that a [Page 45] Man may be Godly, without having such an Aim? And must not every Godly Woman have such an Aim too, as well as the Godly Man? What Need then is there of using the Ivory Chair in chusing Popes? For by this Rule, may not a second Pope Joan be admitted in her Hoop-Petticoat? For who can say, that her Sex is any Hindrance to her having a good Aim?

Qu. III. If the divine Call to the Ministry consists princi­pally in such an Aim; is it not in the Power of a godly Person to call himself with a divine Call, at least as to the principal Part of it, and would not this be a flat Contradiction? And when he hath the principal Part of a divine Call in himself, may not he make a Shift as to the rest, especially if others are a little backward, as not being clear in the Matter? For how can he stop at Man's Judgment, if others judge him unfit, who knows, that he hath the principal Part of the divine Call? Can Mr. T. expect, that any but meer Enthusiasts, will join with him, in placing the principal Part of the divine Call in such an Aim?

Qu. IV. Doth not a divine Call not only authorize, but also require and oblige the Person called, to set about the Execution of his Office, as soon as Providence opens a Door for it, without any further Inauguration? And will Mr. T. say, that such an Aim will warrant or justify a Man in so doing, tho' never so sincere?

Qu. V. If the principal Part of the Call to the Ministry consists in the secret Aim of the Person called, how shall it be possible for People in an ordinary Way, to be satisfied about the Validity of the Call of their Minister, seeing it is well known, that the most notorious Deceivers have made the most vaunting Boasts of their good Aims, to hide their bad Designs and anarchical Disorders, for which this Notion opens a wide Door; for if this be admitted, may not every one that willeth, conse­crate himself a Priest?

Qu. VI. It is readily granted, that a natural Man, while such, cannot aim singly at God's Glory; but yet when the Call to the Ministry doth neither in whole nor in part consist in such an aim; why may not a natural Man have a regular Call to the Ministry for all this? And this leads us to Mr. T.'s second Attempt, to confirm his beloved Tenet, viz. That a natural Man hath no Call of God to the Ministry under the Gospel Dispensation; which Tenet is made the He-Goat of the Flock, or the main Battering-Ram to win or keep the Fort: But here [Page 46] we think it may not be amiss to caution the Reader, not to be frightned at the odd Sight he is like to see; for if we mistake not, he shall by and by see such a Sight as Moses his burning Bush, viz. Scripture set on Flame by this Fire of Contention, burning, but not consumed; but let him not fear; for 'tis only a Fire of one Man's kindling, and why may not another Man quench it, at least with God's Help? Mr. T.'s second Confir­mation of his Tenet or first Reason, seems to consist of three Parts, viz. A Query before, a Query behind, and a Scripture Text in the middle, containing a Query to cement both; and here we cannot expect to make a quick Dispatch; for doth not the Scripture say, that a threefold Cord is not easily broken? Mr. T.'s Words are these, Are not wicked Men forbid to meddle in Things sacred? Ps. 50.16. But unto the Wicked, God saith, What hast thou to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldst take my Covenant in thy Mouth? Now, are not all unconverted Men wicked Men?

Here, before we proceed further, we shall premise a few Words to clear the Way. We shall remark then, 1. That we are slided unawares from wicked Ministers to wicked Men in general, and from the ministerial Office to sacred Things in general, and the unconverted Man is fairly excommunicated not only from the Ministry and special Ordinances, but from med­dling with whatever Things that can be called sacred; so that if this Rule stands, if the carnal Man makes or meddles in Things sacred, such as Prayer, Reading or Hearing God's Word, he must venture at his own Peril, by kicking against the Pricks, or bidding open Defiance to a plain divine Prohibition; and if this be not strange Divinity, what can be called so? 2. Because it is hard to venture at once to the Head of this horned Argu­ment, we shall take it by the Tail, and grant, that all uncon­verted Men may be rightly called wicked Men; but before we will yield any more, we will try the Force of a few Queries on the Head.

Qu. I. If the wicked, i. e. the unconverted Man, be forbid to meddle in sacred Things, will it not thence follow, 1. That Sins of Omission are no Sins in an unconverted Person; for if it be supposed, that the Command makes Obedience his Duty, will not a Prohibition by the same Authority, release as fast as the Command binds? And is not there this Advantage in the Case, that the Prohibition binds always and at all Times? And [Page 47] if Mr. T. could but prove this Doctrine true, would it not be worth its Weight in Gold for the slothful Servant, when called to an Account for hiding his Master's Talent, or tarrying idle in the Market-Place, under a Gospel-Call? For if Mr. T. here declares God's Counsel, as he pretends to do, may not the slothful Servant tell Christ boldly, that the Reason why he sat idle was, because he forbad him to meddle in sacred Things by the Mouth and Pen of his faithful Servant Mr. G. T.? Can Mr. T. think that Christ will admit of such a Plea and judge accordingly, or that he himself will be able to stand his Ground in this particular.

Qu. II. If the unconverted Man be forbid to meddle in sacred Things; will it not follow, that Duties, such as Prayer, Reading or Hearing God's Word, conferring about it, or medi­tating upon it, are in their own Nature, or as Duties, as truly Sins in a natural Man, as Stealing, Lying, Idolatry or Adultery are Sins in a spiritual Man? For will not a Divine Prohibition, if there be any such, make the forbidden Duty formally a Sin? And hath not such a Doctrine a native Tendency to confound the Difference between Sin and Duty, Good and Evil, and to demolish the very Form of Religion, under a Pretence of advan­cing the Power of it? What a strange Divine Law would that be, that would forbid Men that are under it, the Performance of the Duties required by it?

Qu. III. If the unconverted Man be forbid to meddle in sacred Things; will Mr. T. tell us, what shall he do? For if the Divine Law forbids him to perform Duty, or to meddle therewith; doth not it also forbid him to commit Sin, or to meddle therewith? And can any find a Medium in this World between both, or in the next either? And all the While is not Man such a Creature, that cannot be wholly idle; and if God will not find him Work, can we think but the busy Devil will employ him fast enough? For is not the idle Person the Devil's Shop? It is well known, that an unconverted Person cannot exercise Grace, whereof he hath none, so as to be busy in the Power of Religion; and if he be forbid to meddle in the Form, poor Soul! whither shall he go? What miserable Preaching of Christ and the Gospel have we here, where we have neither Law nor Gospel? What can be the Reason, that such a Man as Mr. T. thus halts at Noon-Day in a plain Case? Must not it be, either because he did not consider the Point, or else hath not [Page 48] he imbibed some enthusiastick Notions unawares? Is not there room enough for God to blame and reprove the carnal Man for going on in Sin, and his wrong and defective Performances, to require better Duties from him, as well as to declare the Un­acceptableness of his present Duties; because of his great Sins and Failures in the manner of the Performance of them, as well as because of his Out-breakings otherways; without in the least forbidding, but in all requiring him to meddle to a better Pur­pose with sacred Things, and to render unto God the Tribute of Obedience due to him from his Creature? Can any be so senseless as to argue, that because the Scripture saith, that the Prayer or Sacrifice of the Wicked is an Abomination to the Lord, as Prov. 21.27. and 28.9. that therefore God forbids all unconverted Persons to pray or sacrifice? For by the same Rule, may not Men prove, that God forbids the unconverted Man to plow his Ground, because it is said in Prov. 21.4. that the Plow­ing of the Wicked is Sin? And by parity of Reason, may not Men say, that God forbids the carnal Man to eat or drink, to buy or sell, to walk or fit, &c.?

Qu. IV. If God forbids the unconverted Man to meddle in sacred Things, will Mr. T. tell us, how did God so far approve of Ahab's Humiliation, as to delay the Judgment threatned o [...] his House in his Days, upon the Account thereof? 1 Kings 21.29. Or was it any Mistake in Peter, to enjoin the Duty of Prayer upon Simon Magus, when he saw him in the Gall of Bitter­ness and Bond of Iniquity? Acts 8.22.

Qu. V. When a poor convinced Soul is sorely humbled under a Sense of its sinful and lost State, or else a Godly Person is sorely oppressed with melancholly; is it not one of Satan's most usual Temptations, whereby he labours to ensnare such, his possessing them with an Opinion of their Unfitness for any Duty; and would not he get double Advantage over them, if he could but possess them with such an Opinion, as that God forbids all unconverted Persons to meddle in sacred Things? For must not he be a great Stranger in Israel, who knows not, that such are the most likely to condemn themselves for un­converted? Whose Interest then will such a Doctrine serve?

Qu. VI. When the Proposition to be proved by M. T. was, That natural Men can have no Call of God to the Ministerial Work under the Gospel Dispensation; is it not a little odd, that Mr. T. was obliged to run as far back into the Old Testament [Page 49] as the Psal. 50.16. to fetch his first and main Text to prove the Point? And after all will he tell us, how to apply this Text, to prove what is peculiar to the Gospel Dispensation, without borrowing Help from some such Maxim, as far sought is good for Ladies? For doth not God speak there to such Peo­ple and Priests, whose continual Practice it was to offer continual or daily Sacrifices, as the Law required under the Old Testament Dispensation? And was not that Practice peculiar to the Old Testament Dispensation to distinguish it from the New? Where is Distinctness now? For would not this strike against the Con­tinuance of the Priesthood in the House of Aaron and Tribe of Levi, as much as against Gospel Ministers, unless they were converted?

Qu VII. Doth not Mr. T. strangely wrest this Text to serve a Turn, when he insinuates, that God herein forbids the uncon­verted to meddle in sacred Things? For doth not God in the Context plainly forbid such an Interpretation of his Words? when he saith in Verse 8. I will not reprove thee for thy Sacrifices or Burnt-Offerings continually before me: For is it not remarka­ble, that God, who foreseeth all Things, calculateth his Expres­sions here, as if he was purposely guarding of them against such Cavillers, who would be apt to improve his Words contrary to his Intent to drive Men from their Duty, when it was his plain Intent to forbid their Sin, and not their doing their Duty in the least? For doth not he say, I will not reprove thee for thy Sacri­fices, and is not this as much as if he should have said, as for this offering Sacrifices, O Israel, thou dost well so far, that is thy Duty; I do not reprove thee for doing thy Duty, but do ap­prove of thy Diligence herein: Thy Sin is not thy offering Sa­crifices, but thy Sin is thy Covenant-breaking with God instead of paying him thy Vows, ver. 14. and thy dishonouring God's Name by thy wicked and perverse Conversation instead of order­ing it aright ver. 23. Dost not thou see, O Israel, how incon­sistent is thy vile and sinful Practice with thy offering Sacrifices, and taking my Covenant in thy Mouth? What signifies thy of­fering Sacrifices, tho' good in its Place, without Obedience to the moral Law, which is greater than the ceremonial One? What signifies thy making Covenant with God, if thou dost not pay thy Vows? Does not thy breaking instead of paying thy Vows spoil thy good Deed in making them? What signifies thy making a fair Profession by declaring my Statutes, doth not [Page 50] thy wicked Practice mar all the Good that is in such a Profes­sion? To declare my Statutes is thy Duty, I do not reprove thee for that, but have not I just Reason to reprove thee for thy hating Instruction, and casting my Words behind thee? When thou prayest, preachest and professest in thy own disorderly Way and for thy own Ends, what Glory have I thereby? Or what Acceptance canst thou expect with God, tho' Men may praise thee? Canst thou think that thy fair Profession will be a Cloak thick enough to hide the Deformity of thy Theft and Adultery from me, tho' it may do it from Men for a Time? Canst thou think, O vain Israel, that thy towring religious Show will stand thee in any Stead, if at the same Time thou givest thy Mouth to Evil, and thy Tongue to frame Deceit, by flattering thyself and others with vain Words to break their Vows, to cast my Statutes behind them, and to go on in rebellious Disorders contrary to the Rules and Order prescribed in my Word? Yea, canst thou think, that thy Sacrifices and fair Declarations will be acceptable to me, if thou joinest thereto such wicked Practi­ces, as sitting as a censorious Judge and speaking against thy Brother, by slandering thy own Mother's Son, by perverse Ex­clamations and general Libels, representing him as an Hypocrite and carnal Man, a corrupt Pharisee, a Dupe, a Dunce, and a Fool, &c. God may for wise Ends suffer Men to swagger a while in such irreligious and wicked Practices, and may suffer them to carry this under a religious Covert, and even to be prosperous therein; but will not there be Bitterness in the latter End, if such do not repent in Time? For who will be able to stand before what is spoken in ver. xxi. 22? Will not God call to such one Day as he did to Job in Chap. xl. 7, 8? What is there in all this to forbid the Unconverted to meddle in Things sacred? For is not joining of a wicked Practice to a religious Form and a fair Profession; and making the latter a Cloak to the former, the only Thing forbidden here? For who should hasten faster to meddle in sacred Things, in due Order, than the unconverted Man, if we take Scripture for our Rule? Can­not God forbid the Treachery of a Judas Kiss, without for­bidding the natural Man to kiss the Son, as all Converted or Unconverted are commanded to do in Psal. ii. 12? Would not it be as good Divinity to say, that a Judas Kiss is the fulfilling of that Precept, as to say the former? And does not Mr. T. in p. 19. encourage People to something like this, where, if we take [Page 51] him right, he would teach Men to cover their disorderly Wan­drings from their own pious Pastors upon secret Surmises, that others are more gifted than they, with the fair Shew of the Spirit of Meekness and Love? So that if they have but Brass and Deceit enough to give their Ministers such a parting Kiss as Judas gave for a Salutation to his Master, may not they ac­cording to Mr. T's Rule, bid them such a Good-Night as the Raven gave Noah, without any Regard to present Relation, or former Kindnesses or Benefits by them? For how shall he be a clean Mule, that will not give his Dam a clean Kick after get­ting a good Suck? Cannot God forbid the Deceit of an im­pudent Trollop, that makes a clamorous Noise about her Vows and Peace Offerings, to hide her filthy Market, which she is ready to cry at every Corner, where she can get Customers void of Understanding, without forbidding unconverted Men to make orderly Sacrifices and Vows? Cannot God forbid the Villany of such Sacrificers, who had the daring Confidence to offer Sa­crifices to him with Hands polluted in the Blood of their Bre­thren, without forbidding the Unconverted in Israel to offer Sacrifices? Isa. i. 10 — 15. Who can doubt but that such bloody Villains, as had Confidence enough to rush upon the thick Bosses of God's Buckler, would be ready enough, to serve a Turn, to swear by the great Osyris a thousand Times, that they had a very tender Conscience? And might not they give their offering Sacrifices and abstaining from eating Black-Puddings throughout the whole Year or Lent for Proofs thereof, without telling the World, that they loved Wine and Eggs better than such Fare? But to return to the Point, when God endowed unconverted Men with the Gifts of Prophecy, and of Working of Miracles, like those spoken of in Matth. vii. 22. Or with the Gifts of an Apostleship as Judas, and gives them a Call and an Opportuni­ty to exercise such Gifts for the Good of his Church, was it their Duty to obey or disobey the Call, supposing them to be in Doubts about their State? Or in such a Case, that when a Person gives such satisfying Proofs of his being duly qualified for the Ministry, as to Gifts; having also such a fair Appear­ance of Grace in his Orthodoxy and Regularity, as encourages others to call him to it, tho' neither he nor they are sure of his gracious State, ought such a one to tarry in Jericho till he gets Assurance? Or ought not he, with an humble Reliance on [Page 52] God's Grace, to accept and obey the Call given him; or, at least, may not he do this in Faith?

Qu. VIII. Doth not Mr. T. strangely confound that Text in John 10.1, 9. by making the Door of regular Entrance into the Ministry, spoken of in vers. 1. and the Door of Salvation, spoken of in vers. 9. one and the same? Is this Distinctness too? For what orthodox Protestant doubts, but that Faith in Christ is the Way of Salvation? But will any infer thence, that Faith is the Door of Entrance into the Ministry? For if so, will it not follow, that every true Believer, Male or Female, should be admitted into the Ministry? For according to Mr. T. do not they come in by the Door? Is it not very strange, that such a Man as Mr. T. who blames others, and condemns them for carnal Men, for want of Distinctness doth thus confound Mat­ters so different? For are not the Keys of the visible Church, which open the Door of Entrance into Membership and the Ministry therein, committed to Church Officers, to open and shut it according to Divine Prescriptions? But doth not Christ keep the Key of the Door of Salvation at his own Girdle, and in his own Hand, as he tells us in Rev. 3.7. What else is the Key of David there spoken of? Besides ought not Men to have Faith, or at least deemed to have it, before they are looked upon as fit to be called into the Ministry, How then can Faith be a Door of Entrance into it?

Qu. IX. Whereas Mr. T. to confirm this false Gloss, saith, that remarkable is that Saying of our Saviour in Mar. 4.19. What tho' it be true that Peter and Andrew followed Christ is a spiritual Sense, Will it follow thence, that Christ will not make Men Ministers, till they are true Followers of him in the same Sense as they did? For is it not remarkable also, that Christ himself made Judas not only a Minister, but also an Apostle, tho' he was no true, but only a feigned Follower of him? And will Mr. T. pretend to be wiser than the Wisdom of God?

Qu. X. Whereas Mr. T. saith, that Christ reproved Nicodemus for taking upon him the Office of the Ministry, &c. Doth not he misrepresent the Matter? For is it not evident, that his Igno­rance in a fundamental Article of Faith, was the only Article he was reproved for? And may not any Minister, or even private Christian, give Mr. T. or any other Minister, a modest Reproof, for discovering Ignorance in talking on any common Head of Divinity, without in the least calling the Validity of their Call [Page 53] to the Ministry into question? Besides might not Nicodemus be a Ruler of the Jews and a Master in Israel, without being a Minister? For were not Pharisees Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Rulers? And for aught that is written to the contrary, might not Nicodemus be of the former Rank, and so no Minister; unless it be thought, that their Civil Rulers were not dignified with the Title of Rabbi, or were not concerned in Scripture Knowledge, because the Jewish Government was wholly a Theocracy?

Qu. XI. That 1 Tim. 1.12. proves that Paul was a faithful Minister, we own; but we would desire to know, what is there said of the natural Man? Is not the Argument that runs from one to all very lame? For might not the single Instance of an unconverted Judas be as well urged to prove all Ministers unconverted?

Qu. XII. Whereas Mr. T. asserts, That the Devil may drive Men into the Ministry, we would ask Mr. T. who are in greater Danger of being driven into it by the Devil, than such who plead for an inward or an immediate Call in an ordinary Way, and place the principal Part of the ordinary Call to the Ministry in the Aim of the Person called? Who but the Devil drives Men into anarchical disorderly Ways, contrary to Gospel Rule and Order, under the Pretence of an inward Call? Further we suppose Mr. T. will own, that the Devil drives none into the Ministry without God's most holy and wise Permission; is it any Way contradictory to God's most holy Perfections, to suffer others to be admitted into the Ministry, by the Door of a regu­lar Call? Will God's Grace or Power be less glorious, if he works any saving Effects by the Ministry of such? May not some such be converted afterwards, and others be Cast-aways after preaching edifyingly to others, tho' they had a regular Call to the Ministry, according to Christ's Institutions? We own, that the Ordainers are under a Rule, and are to follow Christ's Prescriptions, and ought not to commit the Ministry to any, but such as have the good Appearance of faithful Men, and if any discover their Hypocrisy afterwards in the apparent Fruits of it, they ought to reject them; but yet will any infer from hence, that God is under such a Rule?

But to set the Matter in a clearer Light, we shall trace Mr. T. a little further: Mr. T. says, pag. 8. But God sends not such hypocritical Varlets, i. e. into the Ministry. Must not Mr. T. [Page 54] mean then, that God sends only gracious Men or true Believers into it? Whereupon we shall ask,

Qu. I. Is not that Act, whereby God sends Believers into the Ministry, the Call of God? Will it not unavoidably follow, that those Qualifications, such as Faith and a good Aim, are not the Call of God, but something different from it, and antecedent to it? Otherwise must not a Man be called before he is called, which is absurd?

Qu. II. If the Call to the Ministry consists in these Qualifica­tions, will it not follow, that no Person ought to enter upon the Work until first he be assured of his own gracious State, and that he hath true Faith? Again would it not follow, that every Minister ought to desist from his Work, whenever or as often a [...] he doubts or is uncertain of his gracious State; because that in such a Case, he is not sure that he hath a Call to the Work?

Qu. III. Suppose an empty Formalist or an Hypocrite to have been in the Ministry for some time, who afterwards comes to be awakened, and see and be convinced of his sinful State; must he then in Conscience lay down his Ministry, and look upon his Ordination null and void, because he sees himself to want those Qualifications, in which Mr. T. makes the divine Call to consist, l [...]st he further provoke God by running, and so incur that dreadful Challenge in Ps. 40.16. What hast thou to do to declare my Statutes, &c.? For if these Words imply a Prohibition to the natural Man to meddle in sacred Things; will not his Praying or Preaching be kicking against the Pricks? Again, if in such a Case a Man's Call or Ordination be null and void, whether he must be re-ordained when or if he be converted?

Qu. IV. If the divine Call to the Ministry consists in these Qualifications, and we should not hear such Ministers who are not called of God, how can a Person in Faith hear a strange Minister, or any of whose Conversion he hath no Knowledge or Certainty, and knows not but that he may be one of those Locusts, or cruel covetous Pharisees, or hypocritical Varlets who are not called of God, and can do his Soul no Good, let his Gifts be never so great? And if he comes in a disorderly or anarchical Way, will not there be more ground to suspect it?

Qu. V. If the divine Call to the Ministry consists in these Qualifications, will it not follow thence, that the weak tho' true believing Minister hath not so good, so strong or sufficient a Call as the strong Believer hath? Yea, may not the same Minister's Call [Page 55] grow stronger and weaker as the Evidences of his Graces do ebb and flow? And would not the Asserting of both or either be ridiculous?

Qu. VI. Whence then doth this Confusion, under which Mr. T. seems to labour, proceed▪ Doth it not proceed from his jumbling and mixing Things together, which are of a quite different Nature and Order, as if they were one and the same Thing? For doth not he confound the authoritative Call, Com­mission or Command of God, which is the divine Act, either mediately or immediately, with the Qualifications requisite in the Persons called, to render them [...]it for the Work they are called to, as if they were the self-same Thing? But are not these very different? For Instance, Was not both Saul and David equally called of God to the Kingdom? but yet were not they very differently qualified for the Office? Was not both Peter and Judas equally called to the Apostleship? but yet were not they very differently qualified for the Work? Had not Na­thaniel these Qualifications before he received a Call? And who can say, but that it was so, with all the Apostles, except Judas? Doth not all this shew, that the Call to the Ministry is one Thing, and the Qualifications requisite to fit for that Work another? What then is become of this towring Argument, which is the He-Goat of the Flock, in which Mr. T. so much triumphs? Doth not it fall flat to the Ground upon a small Handling? For what is the whole of it but bare-faced Sophistry, candied over with rhetorical Strains? Can any think there is any Need to awake Sampson to break such Tow-yarn more than half rotten? Is this the Book that our Great Man counts unan­swerable? Can any lay any Stress upon his Judgment and Commendations of Men, when it appears so shallow in Judging of Books?

Qu. VII. We would further ask Mr. T. whether the seven Deacons spoken of in Acts 6.5. were called of God to that Office before they were chosen by the Apostle's Direction or not? If they were, why did not they execute their Office before? If they were not called of God to that Office before, how can any say, that their Call consisted in their good Qualities? For is it not said that they were full of the Holy Ghost before? Doth it not seem, that the Imbibing and Improving the false tho' vulgar Distinction between the outward and inward Call, the Call of God and the Call of Man to the Ministry, is the [Page 56] Foundation of the above Mistake in Mr. T.? If it were not for this, would it not be altogether needless to insist upon a Thing so plain and obvious to any unbyassed Person, tho' but of an ordinary Capacity? We grant that the above Distinction will hold, and is clearly warranted by Scripture, when it is ap­plied to the Gospel Call to Christianity; for Scripture tells us, that many are called by the Word, who are never called in­wardly by the Spirit: But is it not as evident, that God never appointed, and that Godly Men never used, nor could in Faith use, the Institution of a Call to the Ministry, to convert Men, or to beget Faith in them? For in giving this Call, do not Mi­nisters and People call a Man to the Ministry, not to make him a Christian or faithful Man, but because they charitably judge him a faithful Man already, by the Trial made of him? Is it not very evident, that the Call to the Ministry is not given to convey Gifts or Graces to fit a Man for the Office, but to give a Man Authority and Opportunity to exert the Gifts and En­dowments, which he is judged to be endowed with, before a Call is given? Else, what Need would there be of making an exquisite Trial of Mens Gifts and Fitness before-hand? We grant also, that there is a plain Distinction between an ordinary and an extraordinary Call to the Ministry, the one being me­diate the other immediate, the latter was peculiar to extraordi­nary Officers, such as Prophets and Apostles; the former only is what ordinary Ministers can in Faith expect. Where then is the Scripture Foundation for the Distinction between the Call of God and the Call of Man, the inward and the outward Call to the Ministry? We challenge Men to quote one single Scrip­ture to support this feigned Distinction in the whole Book of God: For is it not evident, that the outward Call, of which Men or Man is the Mean, Instrument or immediate Agent▪ when gone about according to Christ's Institution and Direction in his Word, is the Call of God; yea, the only ordinary Call which we may justly name the Call of God? And is it not a reproaching of Christ's Institution, to name it the Call of Man by Way of Disparagement, to distinguish it from what we name the Call of God? Is not making Distinctions where the [...] is no Room for them, Pharisee-like, who distinguished between swearing by the Altar and the Gift upon the Altar, the Tem­ple and its Gold, as indistinct a Way of Preaching as omitting Distinctions, where the Nature of the Matter requires them▪ [Page 57] And is it not observable, by what we have said already, that Mr. T. is chargeable with both in this Sermon? And seeing he makes Indistinctness in the Application of Doctrines, one of the Characteristick Defects of the natural Man's Ministry, will he tell us in his next a Sign of what is Indistinctness in a spiritual Man throughout his whole Sermon? We grant, that some do run uncalled or unsent into the Ministry, as the false Prophets and false Apostles of old, and those even now, that upon a Pretence of an inward and immediate Call enter into the Vine­yard in a disorderly Way, disagreeable to Christ's Institution; but yet can any that are outwardly regularly called, be said to go unsent or uncalled? For is not the Call to the Ministry an external Call, and is not the Effect of it an external visible Re­lation in the visible Church, as visible between the Persons calling and the Person called; or a visible Separation of a Man to an Office and Authority in the visible Church? For is it not evident that Offices and Officers have a Relation only to the visible Church, and not to the invisible? It is true, the Minister may and ought to be an invisible Member of Christ's invisible Body; but will any say, that there is room for or need of Ministers to be invisible Pastors in the invisible Church as such? If then, there be an inward Call to the Ministry, must not there be some inward Effect of this inward Call, or else is it not in vain? To put the Matter in fairer Light if possible; In the Call of the Gospel to Christianity, there is a double Effect, viz. 1. An outward Effect, the Winning of Men to an outward Profession and Membership in the visible Church and Duties therein. 2. An inward Effect, the Bringing of Men into a Membership in the invisible Church or Body of Christ, by or through a lively Faith; and therefore, is it not evident, that there is room for and need of an outward and an inward Call, the one by the Word, the other by the Spirit, in this Step? If any will say, that the Call to the Ministry is a parallel Case; will they be so kind as to try their Skill in running the Parallel, and we will promise Attention. When Men are chosen into any Church Offices, are not they chosen out of the Church, which is or ought to be an Assembly of Saints, in which none should be admitted, and in which none should be tolerated in full Commu­nion, but such as by their Profession and Conversation, bear a credible Appearance of their being Saints indeed? When there­fore Men chuse a Minister, should not they in all Reason chuse [Page 58] an orderly Member, against whom there is no Charge of Accusation depending, and who appears upon an exquisite Trial and Enquiry, to be gifted, and sound in the Faith, and regular in Practice? And yet when Men are but Men, short-sighted Creatures, may not the best and wisest Men upon Earth, after all possible Pains, be foully mistaken, as to Men's secret State of Grace, which none but God knows absolutely, and those to whom he reveals it? Yet when in Obedience to Christ, and according to his Institution, they act a conscientious Part in calling any to the Ministry; is not such a one rightly and legally called to the Ministry; so that there is no Deficiency in the Call, whatever may be in the Person called? And so, who can deny but that Nadab and Abihu, Hophni and Phinehas, Judas and Demas, together with all the unconverted Men that ever entered into the Ministry in a regular Way, according to Christ's Institution, had a divine ministerial Call, tho' they wanted Grace, which Mr. T. names the Call of God? But is it not wrong thus to miscal sacred Things? For is not changing of the true Names of such Things, the ready Way to lose their true Ideas, and thereby to bewilder ourselves and others, to the great Hazard of Truth?

2. The second Argument, to prove, that such People who have no better than Pharisee-Teachers, are to be pitied, is, because the Ministry of natural Men is uncomfortable to gracious Souls.

Qu. I. But what is this to the Matter in Hand? For may not the Ministry of a spiritual Man be as uncomfortable to carnal Men, or even to spiritual Men under Decays and Slumbers; how else are Men made to cry and roar so loud at Seasons? If Reports be true, have not some Hearers of late Sermons been made so uncomfortable as to chuse Strangling rather than Life? Have not many more been put into such Shocks and Fits, as made them Objects of Pity and Grief to most of their Beholders; when it may be those who had got the Second-sight, could rejoice at such mournful Sights, in Token of their Tender-heartedness? Would it be safe then to call every Minister that will make his Hearers uncomfortable a carnal Man? Who then are these carnal Ministers? Messrs. Somebodies, Messrs. Every Bodies, but Somebodies; and after all is said, are not they Messrs. No-body knows them? Are not those edifying Sermons wherein the Preacher makes clamorous Out-cries against Pharisees and carnal Men and Ministers, upon meer Guesses; when for aught is said in publick, [Page 59] the Preacher may be levelling his Arrows against the Papal Crew in the German Empire; and so, as to the main Thing driven at, is not the Hearer obliged to return Home, after a tedious Journey, as wise as he went, only he hath got a Flea in the Ear, to put him upon making Guesses upon Guesses upon the Preacher's Out-cry, founded upon Guesses, and as his Humour ballances to the one Side or the other, will he not pass his Censure, and draw it thro' the Heart of Some-body, to make the Devil Sport? O rare Edification! For what is rash censuring and accusing the Brethren on such Footings, but Playing a Tune upon the Devil's Fiddle? But will Mr. T. and his Party, first prove themselves to be spiritual Men, by some stated Rules besides their own bold Say-foes? And if the other Side afterwards will not venture as severe a Trial before indifferent Judges, will not the Way be in some measure cleared, to treat them accordingly? Besides, Is not Truth much more comfortable than Error; and so is not there a great Difference between Hearing an orthodox Minister and an heterodox Pharisee as to Comfort? And may not a carnal Man greatly excel many a godly Man, in all common Gifts of Memory, Judgment, Oratory, Eloquence, as well as the Heathen Orators did, and so be able to deliver their Dis­courses with all the Advantage of Diction, Pathos, Emphasis, Cadence and Accent? Doth not the Apostle plainly grant this in 1 Cor. 13.1—3.? Besides, when Ministers are orthodox in Doctrine and regular in Practice (for if they be not such, we plead not for them) How can Men know that they are uncon­verted? When therefore the Word is preached in Purity by a Minister that is regularly called, behaving orderly, and who hath not forfeited his Character by false Doctrine or Misbeha­viour; ought not his Auditors chearfully and thankfully to attend there-upon, looking to God for his Blessing upon his own Ordinance, without needless and hurtful Jealousies, Doubts or Queries about the Minister's secret State towards God? But to proceed,

Qu. II. Tho' we own, that there is an Emnity between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent, and that this will be now and then creating Jarrs between unconverted Mini­sters and godly People; and will it not do the same between unconverted People and a godly Minister, especially if People counter-act good Rules, as Mr. T. advises them? If Ministers are the Make-bates in every Quarrel between them and the [Page 60] People, would it not be good Advice to get them indicted for common Barrators? Only lest honest Men suffer Wrong, will it not be necessary to except the Raisers of Feuds and Factions in their Brethren's Bounds, for peaceable Men? For who knows, but that this may make some of them love Peace the better for the future? Besides will not the Relicks of Corruption in the godly Ministers and People, often cause them to jarr and contend one with another, as Paul and Barnabas, Luther and Calvin, Hooper and Ridley did? And may not these polish their Pleas with Wit and Rhetorick, and gild them with the specious Names of Zeal, Fidelity, Peace, good Order and Unity? How then shall we catch the natural Man with this shattered Net?

Qu. III. Tho' tis true, that natural Men have no true Love to Christ, and the Souls of their Fellow-Creatures; yet may not they outdo a faithful Minister in pretending Love to both, as well as their Great Grandfathers the false Apostles outdid Paul, both in commending themselves, and pretending great Love to Souls? 2 Cor. 10.12. Gal. 4.17. And did not their fair tho' false Pretences prove very bewitching to some? Gal. 3.1. Can Mr. T. produce any Writings, wherein any of his Brethren appear so void of Love to their Brethren, as he appears in the present Sermon? Or is the Tribute of Love fully paid to Mi­nisters already, so that the little Remainder of it left is due only to the People?

Qu IV. Whereas Mr. T. saith, that the Discourses of a natural Man are cold, sapless, and freeze between their Lips; we would ask, whether a warm natural Temper may not do Wonders to mend that Defect? Yea, may it not outdo Grace poured into a more cool-temper'd Soul? Further, how can natural Men fis [...] faithfully for Fame, a good Name and worldly Pelf, without they strive to make grim Faces, and Smiles too, to warm the Affec­tions of others to them, or else may not there be Danger of parting from them with empty Pockets, and without Notice▪ Can any doubt, but that some natural Men in times of yo [...], had the Knack of blowing up the Fire of Purgatory into such a blazing Flame, as to heat the Heart of the most frozen Usurer, inasmuch as Men's Money burnt their Pocket's Bottoms out, so that they could not hold them any longer? And are not natural Men crafty Fellows still; so that if they find that a little Warmth in the Delivery will give Money or Praise, will not the Love of Money warm them to a due Pitch, to offer the [Page 61] Expence of their Passions in Sacrifice to their dear Mammon, altho' they care not a Fig for the People?

Qu. V. Let Teaching with Authority be for ever ascribed to Christ as his just Praise, who spoke in such an incomparable Manner, that never a Man did or will speak like him; but yet we would ask, whether Men's speaking with Authority consists in furious Passions, strong Voice or Accent, and masterly positive Assertions and Harangues, without Order, Reason, or Scripture Proof; or in a clear stating of Truth, and confirming it with clear Scripture Proofs, with becoming Gravity, and commending themselves not to the Ears, but to every Man's Conscience, in declaring God's whole Counsel without Reserve or corrupt Mixture? For is not the mighty Man in the Scriptures the most authoritive Divine, albeit his Language is less fluent than gaudy Rhetoricians?

Qu. VI. Granting, That Pharisee-Teachers had no Experience of a special Work of the Holy Ghost upon their own Souls, while Pharisees; but yet, when they turned Christians, and embraced Christ and the Gospel, in Purity, did not the Case alter? For who can say, but that Paul and Nicodemus had as clear Expe­riences of the Work of Grace as any others, when converted? Is there the same Reason for orthodox Christians to turn Follow­ers of Mr. W. or T. as there was for Pharisees to turn Christians, in order to learn Experiences of Grace? It is probable others are not inclined to discourse so frequently on any particular Sub­jects, as those who force the same common Heads of Doctrine almost into every Sermon, because they know God's Law is exceeding Broad, and affords great variety of important Subjects, they knowing it to be their Duty to declare the whole Counsel of God; yea, it may be further granted, that they have been sometimes longer and sometimes shorter in their Applications; and hath not Mr. T. W. and Blair been so too, as some of their printed Sermons witness? But who more general in their Appli­cation than those, who generally make one common Applica­tion, which is at least the same in the main to suit most of their Doctrines? It is probable others are not ordinarily so distinct, as to divide their Auditors their particular Shares, according to their different Ages, Sexes and Colours; but yet, will Mr. T. tell us what are those important Subjects, that are better cleared by him and his Party, than by other pious Ministers? Where are their new Marks, to distinguish the precious from the vile? [Page 62] What new Distinctions have they brought to light? Is it the Distinction between the Call of God and the Call of Man, in the ordinary Call to the Ministry? Who of the other Side have been so Indistinct, as to confound an orthodox regular Ministry with an heterodox disorderly Ministry, as if they were one and the same? Who of them have shewn so little Skill, in distin­guishing between Law and Gospel, as to assert, that Judas's Ministry, as an Apostle, was a legal Ministry, at least in Part? As for misapplying the Word thro' Ignorance, let Men's Perfor­mances decide that. If the Texts in Psal. 50.16. and John 10.1, 9, and some more in the present Sermon, are not misap­plied, let what we have said, and shall yet say, on that Head, be answered. As for misapplying the Word thro' Anger, who are in greater Danger of that, than such who are like furious Phaeton, who resolved to drive, tho' he set the World on Fire? Or like a driving Jehu, who, in his flying Career, thought himself a Sort of a petty God, proclaiming his own Heart right, and questioning that of others; or like hair-brained Drivers, who resolve to whistle out their Whistle, tho' the Cart turn over? Who are those that use Raging, Railings, and utter frightning Surmises, damning and devilizing Men at an odd Rate, to the casting of some weak Souls into Distraction and Despair? It is probable those of the other Side have not the Courage to use such Ways, because they fear God, pity the weak, and look upon such Me­thods as are sometimes used undecent for the Stage, much more for the Pulpit, if current Accounts be true? Is there no Appea­rance of Anger in Mr. T's proclaiming the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, swarms of Locusts, Crowds of covetous and cruel Pharisees, who, if they could help it, would not let one faithful Man come into the Ministry? Did ever a dissenting Protestant paint the Body of the Protestant Clergy in such black and dismal Colours, in any Age? Is not there barefaced Slander contained in these Expressions? Is there no Appearance of Anger in Mr. T's pronouncing such orderly Members, as content themselves with and adhere to their own pious Pastors, and will not ramble over the Parish-line to him and his Party, Dupes and Dunces, as blind as Moles, as dead as Stones, without any spiritual Taste and Relish, poor Fools, silly Souls, &c? But we shall meet those Things in our Way again, and therefore pass them here: Who are those that are more guilty of strengthning the Hands of the Wicked, by promising them Life, than such who proclaim [Page 63] disorderly Ramblers, Criers, Roarers, and Tumblers, and Rowl­ers, if not Demoniacks, Converts, and that upon the Account of such odd Doings, whereas it is well known, that many such behaved exceeding vile afterwards as well as before? Who are those that fasten Terrors into the Hearts of the Righteous more than those, who pronounce all in a damnable State, who do not know that they are in a gracious State? Whereas Mr. T. brings it in as a Charge against the carnal Men that they sow before they plow; We would query, whether some Sort of Ground or Grain will not yield a better Crop in that odd Way? But how doth Mr. T. plow God's Vineyard, if not by sowing God's Word? Hath he any Sort of Plow to prepare his Hearers before sowing the good Seed? What have we here then but a jingling empty Sound? If the Meaning is, that Ministers should industri­ously preach the Law and Terror to their Hearers first, and hide the Gospel from them at least for a Time, as it would seem to be, by what foregoes and follows; We would ask, how is this possible in a mixt Multitude, without serving Men with a com­mon Mess? Whether feeding the Child or beating the Dogs is the main Care of the Nurse? If the Children must be neglected for a Time, for fear that the Dogs may snatch away some Crumbs, or till the Dogs are so well lashed as to run away or change their Nature, may not there be Danger of neglecting them too long? Where can we find that Wheat growing in the Field of the visible Church, that is without Chaff and Tares? If so, will not there be as great a Danger, to preach the Gospel an hundred Years hence, as there is now? What a fine giddy Counsellor is carnal Wisdom in religious Matters? For is not the Gospel the Foundation in the second Covenant, how else shall Christ be the Foundation and chief Corner-stone? Is not the Law as a Rule, and a broken Covenant added as an Appen­dix unto the Promise, as we read in Gal. iii. 19? Must we then always begin with the Appendix, or can we lay any Foundation for Faith or Gospel-Obedience by the Law? Before Men con­demn Ministers for carnal Men on this Account, should not they take heed, that they do not rush unawares upon the thick Bosses of God's Buckler? For is it not evident, that the great Jeho­vah, whose Wisdom is infinite, revealed a Saviour to fallen Adam, before he pronounced the Curse of the first Covenant up­on him? Gen. 3.15. Is it not one main Difference between the first and second Covenant, that in the first the Law was [Page 64] before the Promise, but in the second after it? And is it not impossible to place the Command before the Promise in the second, without turning it to be a legal Covenant under some Form or other? Is not Christ's Sermon on the Mount one of the first and longest Sermons of his that we have upon Record, and doth not he therein pronounce the Beatitudes first? Might it not be supposed, that many of Christ's Hearers were as carnal as the Hearers of our Ministers, who are staged for carnal Men, for not conforming to carnal Rules? Was not it Christ's Com­mission to his Disciples, when he sent them forth, into whatsoever House ye enter, first say, Peace be to this House, Luke 10.5. And could they proclaim Peace by the Law to any one House? Who the [...] are those, that are busy in raising the Fabrick before they lay the Foundation, but those that put Men upon legal Humblings, to prepare themselves for Christ and the Gospel? When Minister therefore have first laid down the Doctrine of Justification ortho­doxly, agreeable to our Standard, and keep to it, how can they press or drive Men to Duty and good Order too much, in Po [...] of Gospel-Obedience? And let the World judge, whether they are worst Drivers, who press even natural Men to wait upon God in the Way of Duty, or those that forbid natural Men to meddle in sacred Things? For if there was no more than a Per­adventure itself of obtaining Mercy, to encourage us to take up with the Way of Duty, if they go wholly out of it and hang themselves, is not that Peradventure lost? But yet, if there be such a Thing as certain Decrees, must not the benefiting of some by Duty be as well secured as their Eternal Happiness; or else, is it not time for us to form a new Creed, by casting away the Doctrine of absolute Decrees to the Means and to the End? Tho' it is true, we cannot beforehand have any more than a Perad­venture of our being of that happy Number; yet, is not be faithful, who hath promised, him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out? John vi. 37. and who hath pronounced a Blessing upon the Man, that heareth him, watching duly at his Gates, and waiting at the Posts of his Doors, Prov. viii. [...]4. [...] Mr. T. think, that Failure in the Manner, will excuse Men for neglecting the Matter of Duty; or that the Plea of the Fear of the former will clear Men of the Guilt of the latter? Who a [...] those, that discover more Want of Experience of those spirituall Difficulties, that pious Souls are exposed to, in this Vale of Tears, than those who study frightful Expressions and Postures [...] [Page 65] terrify weaker Vessels; who rejoice to see poor frightned Crea­tures in shocking senseless Fits; who tell the poor convinced Soul, who is persuaded of his being in an unconverted State, That God forbids the unconverted to meddle in sacred Things; who tell the doubting Soul, that every one that is in a State of Grace knows it? Is not it an high Degree of Misery, to fall into the Hands of such Physicians in a Strait, whose Remedies are full worse than the Disease? And seeing Mr. T. speaks of the natural Man's cold Prayers, is it not observable, that some, who call themselves spiritual Men, seem to be somewhat barren in Matter and soon weary in that Duty? And is not their Warmth there­in very disproportionable to what they discover in Preaching?

Qu. VII. Whereas Mr. T. pag. 11. charges carnal Ministers thus, They love those Unbelievers that are kind to them, better than many Christians, and chuse them Companions; We would ask, whether Unkindness to his own orderly Minister be not a surer Sign of a factious Partizan than of a Believer? Whether Kindness to his own Minister, if he is clear in the rest, be a proper mark of an Unbeliever? Or may not these Publicans by Chance go to Heaven before Mr. T.'s unkind Saints? Is it not an hard Case, if there be Jarrs, whoever is in the Fault, the Minister is carnal: If there be Love between Ministers and People, the Minister is carnal, and the Kind to him, Unbelievers; if he be of a calm Temper, he is cold and carnal and a Coward; if he is warm, and presses Men to Duty, he is a carnal Driver; if he comforts People, he is carnal, for he strengthens the Hands of the Wicked; for none else will be so kind as to come and hear such; if he reprove the Unruly and Disorderly, he is carnal; for these are the Saints of the Day, however it may go here­after, when the first will be last and the last first? Are not they born under some unhappy Planets or Signs, or else very unhappy in their Judges, against whom all Sorts of Premisses shall con­clude to their Disadvantage? But yet will the Disciple expect to be above his Master? If the Matter were really so, that those that call themselves spiritual Men prove unkind to the Ministers, and those that are accounted carnal Men are kind to them, grant they were really so, without they shew Love and Respect to such in a civil Way, how can they be true Followers of him that upon the same Account was stiled the Companion of Publicans and Sinners? and who but Pharisees will be offended at them for so doing? Mat. 9.10, 11. But when countenancing and [Page 66] palliating of Errors, Anarchy and Disorder, as well as Unkind­ness to and exclaiming against orthodox and regular Ministers, are counted Signs of Conversion; is it any Wonder that Preach­ing of Truth, Confutation of Errors, Pressing of Duties, bearing Witness against Disorders, is unpleasing to such irregular Con­verts; who, tho' they love dearly and are greatly edified in hearing others lashed in a blind Way, yet they will not have their Tammuz or Dalilah touched with a Finger, for fear Dag [...] may fall before the Ark of the God of Israel? Is it not some Difficulty to find out, what is that great Comfort such have in Hearing the godly Ministers of the Age carnalized, pharisized, reproached, reviled; their pious Adherents miscalled Dupes and Dunces, &c. themselves damned and devilized for want of Assurance; and if it were not that they are encouraged to Disorders, and upon that Account and their Unkindness to their own Ministers and Kindness to Intruders, fainted; might not they as to Com­fort sing, Whoop Barnaby, and return to their Recreations, the longest Holy-Day in the Year? But who ever heard stinking Mackerel cried in the Market?

3. Mr. T.'s third Argument to prove his Doctrine, is, The Ministry of natural Men, is for the most Part unprofitable. And would not Somebody obtain his End, if by silly and sinful Arts he could make the Ministry of those, whom he calls, right or wrong, natural Men, not only for the most part, but altogether unprofitable and unacceptable in the World? When on the one Hand God is prayed unto, to confound them, and when this prevails not, do not Men take the Devil's Way by defaming, reproaching, false accusing and censuring them, by oblique Insinuations and indirect Suggestions, casting Dirt in a blind Way, as if they were resolved neither to act the Part of Friends nor of fair Foes; and can Men think that God will be always silent, tho' he may be for a time; or can they think God will be thus served, and that the Interest of Christianity will be thus promoted, or their own Ends will be gained in such immoral, wicked and deceitful Ways, which Scripture and even Nature's Dictates reprove; and can any Thing but enthusiastick Rovings fortify Men to act thus under a Cloak and Cry of Religion? But to proceed,

Qu. I. As to real Benefit, may it not be justly feared, that the Ministry of the most godly Men hath been less profitable than the Pious could have wished in all Ages, and in most if [Page 67] not all Places? But as for making Parties, such is the Biass of corrupt Nature, that we would ask, Who ever that had Wick­edness, Courage and Policy enough to paint gross Errors with glaring Colours, but have been successful, at least for a Time, to draw Multitudes after them? Have not the Pharisees, Sad­ducees, and Essenes, outdone the Karraites? Have not Theudas, Judas of Galilee, and Barchochebas, played their Pranks with Success? Hath not Simon Magus and the false Apostles had their Crowds? Hath not the Romish Beast had the whole World wondering after him? And hath not Mahomet been as successful as to claim the Empire of three Parts of the World? Have not Arrius, Pelagius, Arminius, Socinus, Fox, had their Tribes; and have not some of them too many still? Had not Dancing Sacheverel his Mobs? And might not the Zeal of these in their Time, compare Notes with our present Rabble, unless Enthusiasm will help to make a better Story? Hath popular Applause in bad Ways been of any Service to any, but to lift Men up, like Icarus's Wings, for a surer Break-Neck?

Qu. II. Had Noah, Moses, Aaron, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Ezekiel, or even our Saviour himself, any great Reason to boast of their great Success in the Ministry? Did not more than one of them cry out, Who hath believed our Report? Yea, did not He that was incomparably the Greatest of all, make this Moan, in John 12.38.?

Qu. III. We plead for no Ministers who by the Unsoundness of their Doctrines or Misbehaviour, give just Offence; for if any can be proven such of either Side, we wou'd have Men join in discarding them, albeit they would pretend to be spiritual Men; for by their late Conduct we are afraid of none more than those, that make a fair Shew in the Flesh, and glory much in Appearance and despise others, who seem to have bid farewel to Charity and Gospel-Order, and we are afraid are going to barter the Love of Truth, for Love to Mr. W—d, and his incoherent corrupt Scheme; and we would have our spiritual Watch-men to look diligently to it, lest there be a Root of Bitterness springing up, which may trouble them and defile many. In the mean Time say we, Let the Blind have proper Guides, and, if possible, Eye-salve; let the Dead be buried, or bury their Dead; let Mad-men be purged, bleeded and disci­plined, and let Swords and Halters be put out of their Way; let possessed Men be bound, watched and prayed for; let Rebels [Page 68] and Enemies to God be sharply reproved by Ministers, and punished by Magistrates, if upon Trial it appears they deserve it; let the Captives of Darkness be pitied, instructed and prayed for; let Lepers be shut out of the Camp for seven Days, and if possible cleansed; let ignorant Rusticks have their Plows mended, or be put to Trades; let the Unconverted, if known, be put among Catechumens, and wait upon God in the Use of Means: Thus much of the rational Part of this Argument.

2. As to the Scripture brought to confirm it, viz. Jer. 23.32. Behold, I am against them that prophesy false Dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my People to err by their Lies and by their Lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this People at all, saith the Lord.

Qu. I. Was not there some Reason why Mr. T. Pharisee-like, quoteth Mr. Pool's Gloss upon the Text, instead of the Scripture Words themselves; and who is he like, when he cites only such a small Part of the Gloss, and leaves the Persons there intended, wholly under a Veil for any Thing that is said to discover them to his Readers? Was it Ignorance or Anger, or something else, that prompted Mr. T. to misapply this Text, by appropriating it to the Ministry of the natural Man in general, whether orthodox or heterodox? For who but Enthusiastick Dreamers, that falsely pretend to an immediate Call and Mission, and to an immediate Guidance of a divine Inspiration, or imme­diate Revelations, when in Reality they only declared their own Dreams and Fancies, and delusive Experiences, who ran in a disorderly Way, contrary to God's instituted Order, causing the People to err by preaching Lies and Lightness, and not sound Doctrine, are the only Persons here intended and spoken of? Is it not therefore evident to the meanest Capacity, that there is not a Word here that strikes against an orthodox orderly Mini­ster, that preaches sound Doctrine, and is not turning its Edge against such, a plain Perverting of Scripture? And we appeal to the whole World, whether or no Mr. W—d appears in his Writings to come within the Verge of this Text, more than any Minister of our Denomination within the Bounds of the Synod? And are not those that are attached to his Enthusiastick Notions, them that are next in the File? What then will become of Men's high Pretences to great Edification, in hearing Men preaching glaring Experiences, which to the Auditor can be no better than a waking Dream, whatever it be to the [Page 69] Preacher? For how is it possible for the Hearer to come to any Certainty in the Matter about such Declarations, viz. Whether such boasting Accounts are delusive Fancies, Deceits, or Reali­ties? At the most, can the Hearer arrive to any more than a bare human Faith, in an ordinary Way, in such Matters? And is not advancing an high Degree of human Faith, in Matters of Religion, the Bane of it, and the only Way to make Pharisee Rabbies, contrary to the plain Caution given in Matth. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. For who more blind than those who have their Consci­ences tailed to one Fore-Horse? And if such Relators appear deficient, as to Solidity, Orderliness, or Consistency with Scrip­ture, Reason or themselves, is not human Faith itself rendered thereby a doubtful Wavering, if Men do but act as rational Creatures?

Qu. II. As to Experience of Success or Unsuccessfulness; Who that hath read any thing considerable, and allows himself Leave to think, but knows that this is a very precarious Rule to judge of the Goodness or Badness of Things and Persons? For how often shall we find, that decoyed Villany hith been successful, when real Virtue strove against the Tide to no Purpose; how else could Christ say, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my Strength for nought and in vain? Isa. xlix. 4. Will not the In­stances that we have given already of good and bad Ministers, if duly considered, put the Matter in a fair Light? But to follow Mr. T. in his Ramblings; grant that there is too much Appea­rance of Security up and down, and that Ministers may have their Share in the Guilt, by their Slackness in some or most Places; yet may it not be owing, in other Places, more to the Want of due Improvement in the People? But is it not hard to judge, whether this proceeds from the total Want of Grace, or the Want of the due Exercise or Excitation of it, especially when Men are orderly? For had not the wise as well as the foolish Virgins their Slumbers? In what Age was it, wherein the Church enjoyed Liberty, Peace and Prosperity, for any Time, but the most faithful Ministers had too much Reason to mourn in secret, because of the Security and Unconcernedness of their Hearers? And how can Mr. T. tell, but that this is the Case at present with many or most of his Brethren? Yea grant, that other Ministers are not Successful in fixing Terrors and Convictions to that Degree that Mr. W—d, T. and their Adherents fix them, or which they judge necessary as Preparative to Conversion; yet [Page 70] if the End of winning Souls to Christ, can be obtained with less Degrees, whether are those high Degrees desirable for them­selves? May not therefore their Want of Success in such Mat­ters, be owing to their Faithfulness? viz. Because they are not clear in Conscience to use such artful Ways to raise Men's Pas­sions in a blind Way as others use, as judging, that God comes not in the Earthquake nor Whirlwind, but in the still Voice, now as well as formerly. For is it not notorious, that they clear up Truths, and preach as convincingly, to the understand­ing Hearers, as the other Side, as well as more orthodoxly? And may we not further enquire, whether or no the solid Ex­ercises and Power of Religion do not seem to lose Ground apace, by Men's crying up such Awakenings in the Manner it is done? For do not Pride and Peevishness, Self-conceit and rash Censures, Factions and Contentions, in many Places, seem to threaten to destroy the very Form of Religion and Gospel Order? For tho' we own, that keeping up the Form is not enough to prove, that the Gospel flourishes; yet, when hearing the Word, parta­king the Sacraments, and even paying the Salaries of Ministers, are plain Gospel Duties; and when done or performed in a be­coming Manner, are not these better Signs of the Success of the Gospel, than the Contempt and Neglect of these and other Duties, upon the Account of causeless Offences, groundless Jea­lousies, Factions and Party-Zeal, divisive litigious Quarrels and disorderly Rovings?

Qu. III. Whereas Mr. T. seems, in page 12. to explode the very Notion of a Minister's taking Comfort in his acting a faith­ful Part in doing his Duty, without seeing Success: It must be owned, that to labour in vain, is double hard Labour; yet, it not the Success of our Labours wholly and solely the Lord's, and not ours, how fit soever the Instrument be, as may be seen in 1 Cor. iii. 7? And yet, did not God lay such a Burthen, as la­bouring in vain, upon some of his very dear Servants, to their great Tryal and Exercise? And did not he tell some of them beforehand, that their Ministry would be succesless; and was their Obedience and Faithfulness less or more glorious, in that they acted a good Part in Submission to divine Authority, when they knew they should have no Success, or at least no great one? Was not this the Case with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and even with Christ himself, as may be seen in Isa. vi. 9, 10. Jer. vii. 27. Ezek. iii. 7. Matth. xiii. 14, 15? What had Christ him­self [Page 71] to comfort him, but that his Judgment was with the Lord, and his Work with his God? Isa. xlix. 4. And doth not he comfort himself in his doing his Duty, even when he laboured in vain, when he saith in the next Verse, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the Eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my Strength? And hath not God given Grounds to his Servants, to comfort themselves in their doing their Duty, as in Ezek. iii. 19, 21. and xxxiii. 9? And as to ourselves, is not our acting a faithful Part, in the Way of Duty, the only solid Grounds of Comfort, in our several Callings and Works thereof, Gal. vi. 4? But as to Comfort in others, we readily grant, that a conscientious Man, who travels in Birth that Christ may be formed in the Hearts of his Hearers, cannot take Comfort, without seeing probable Grounds of Hope of it, appearing in Men's Attachment to Truth in Principle and Practice; but if Ministers, who are but Men at the best, cannot take Comfort in the Success of their Labours without knowing or being assured, that Christ is truly formed in the Hearts of his Hearers, as Mr. T. seems to insinuate here; how is it possible for Ministers in an ordinary Way, to take Comfort in their Labours, while in this Life? Must not they therefore, according to this Rule, resolve, while here, to sow in Tears, without expecting to reap as much as the First-fruits of Comfort in the Success of their Labours, till the Time of reaping in Joy comes? For is not the Pretence of the certain Knowledge of the secret State of others in an or­dinary Way, a vain Dream of an empty senseless Brain? Tho' we will not deny, but that such Dreamers may have full Bellies of Fare good enough, yet doth it not appear, that their Brains are as full of enthusiastick Whimsies, as their Bellies can be of better Fare?

Qu. IV. Doth not Mr. T. seem to be very wavering in his Judgment, as if he was double if not treble minded, whereto to ascribe the Success of the Ministry, or the Benefit of the Hearer in attending thereupon? For,

1. Doth not he seem to suspend the Success or Efficacy of ministerial Performances, as if it depended upon the Grace of the Minister? And doth not what he saith, from page 9—15, seem to be built on this Suggestion? But yet, seeing Mr. T. in ano­ther Point, as may be seen in its proper Place, would fain twit his Brethren with being worse than Papists, may not we here remark, that Papists are more orthodox than this; for tho' they [Page 72] say, that the Efficacy of Sacraments depends upon the Priest [...] Intention, but that it depends upon the Condition of the Priest as to Holiness, they say not, if our Books be right? But do not Protestants deny both?

2. Doth not Mr. T. seem to suggest, from page 17—22, That the Efficacy of ministerial Performances depends upon the different Degrees of the Gifts of Ministers, tho' both or all be gracious? But is it any new Thing for God to give gracious Ministers of smal­ler Gifts great Success; or to give Men of great Gifts and Graces small Success? And hath not God given great Gifts to many, on whom he bestowed no Grace at all? But are not these Notions directly opposite to Question 91 of our Shorter Catechism, and to Quest. 161 of our Larger Catechism? Tho' we freely grant, that both Gifts and Graces in a Minister, furnish him with an Aptitude, as an Instrument, to do good to Souls in a Way of Profit or Comfort, for Conversion and Edification, and the greater the Degrees of either or both are, the greater the Ap­titude of the Instrument; but yet, as the Necessaries of Salvation are plainly revealed, and as the true Success of Men's Labours is wholly owing to God, must not appropriating it to any thing in the Instrument, be idolizing of it?

3. Doth not Mr. T. also seem to suspend the Success of the Ministry upon the Hearers Inclination or Judgment, how else can this be pleaded a sufficient Reason to dissolve the Relation between Minister and People, or to justify their Non-attendance upon the pastoral Administration of their Pastors, to go to hear others for ordinary? But is it not the Truth in the Matter, that the Success or real Efficacy of sacred Administrations, depends wholly and solely upon the divine Blessing and Co-operation therewith? And if Men desert the Truth in any Point, may it not be seen, that their great Capacities will only serve to entan­gle themselves and others with vain Notions?

Qu. V. May not a carnal Minister one Way or other make himself Master of the same Words and Phrases, which Godly Ministers use in speaking of the highest Mysteries and Exercises of Grace, and of the most experimental Parts of Religion? As for Example, may not such a Minister get, by Memory, Mr. J. T's and Mr. Blair's Sermons of Regeneration and Adoption: yea Mr. G. T's expostulatory Address, or such like Pieces, so as to be able to deliver them to an Auditory with all the Advantage and Elegancies of a beautiful, graceful and moving Delivery? [Page 73] And can any doubt, but that such a Minister would be as care­ful and industrious this Way, as if he acted from better Princi­ples? Besides, hath not every Grace its Counterfeit? And are not these as like true Grace, that Men deceive themselves with them, and others with their Lustre; and when great Gifts are added to these, may not Men in the Strength thereof go very far in the Theory of the Doctrine of Experiences; and if they feel the less, may not they pass with Men, if they have but Cou­rage to pretend the more? For doth not the Acceptance that the barefaced Pretence of Men's Ability to know and judge the se­cret State of others, shew, that bold Pretenders may pass with many for great and good Men?

Qu. VI. We would ask Mr. T. further, whether he really judges, that the Truth of God delivered by a gifted, orthodox and regular Minister, tho' he were unconverted, have not a far greater Aptitude, as means to convince, convert and edify Hearers, than any Temptation of Satan, or any thing else that pro­duceth its Effect by meer Chance-Medley, as Mr. T. is pleased to express it page 13? 1 Because the Ordinance is of Christ's Institution. 2, The Power of God's Word, which is supposed to be spoken truly and decently. 3, Because of the Prayers of the Godly Hearers. 4, The due Attention given to the Word as the Word of God. 5, Because of the Prayers of the whole Church of God for a Blessing upon his own Ordinance. Will not these, together with other Circumstances that may concur, make the good Effect following thereupon, an Effect of God's Blessing upon his own Institution, and not of Chance-Medley, though Grace should be wanting in the Preacher, which neither he nor the Hearer knows, nor suspects? Is God's Power, Grace or Holiness any Way less glorious, if God owns his own Ordi­nances, regularly administred, as to the external Part of it, to do a saving Good to the Hearer, when the Preacher, for Want of Grace, receives no saving Benefit thereby? Doth not Mr. T. seem to allow, that some Instances could be shewn of unconverted Ministers being instrumental in convincing Persons of their lost State, i. e. effectually, as we understand him, or else, can any suppose it a rare Thing for them to convince Men in some De­gree of their fallen State? Can Mr. T. give any one Instance of a Person effectually convinced of his lost State by Satan's Temp­tations? For are not all Satan's Temptations, even those that he transacts as an Angel of Light, blinding and not enlightning? [Page 74] It is true, God may over-rule Evil, so as to bring Good out of it, but can that Good in any Sense be said to be the Effect of the Evil, or is it not the sole Effect of some good Cause? Is there the same Ground to think, that God will make use of Satan, who hath no Right nor Call to use any one of God's Ordinances, as often as he doth a natural Man, well gifted and regularly called, according to God's Institution, making Use of his own Ordinance in Obedience to him, to convince, convert and edify Souls? Doth not God bestow Gifts on natural Men, either for their own Good, or for the Good of others; or else, must it not be, that he bestows them in vain? Is there any Ground in all the Book of God for Men to think, that God will own Satan as an Instrument of conveying any saving Bene­fit to the Souls of Men? If there is, had not Men better to wait upon him, than upon an enthusiastick Dreamer's Ministry; for doth not that Text in Jer. xxiii. 32. plainly assure us, that such shall not profit God's Israel at all, be their Dreams never so pleasing to Flesh and Blood? We grant, that God may make Use of Satan, to chastize and afflict the Bodies and Minds of Persons, for doth not Scripture and later Experience prove this? But who can prove, that God hath made use of him to subdue any Sin? It is granted, that the Body may be mortified by Satan; but is it not the proper Work of God's Spirit to mortify the Deeds of the Body? Is it therefore supposable, that God will make Satan instrumental of conveying any saving Good to Souls by his wicked Temptations, in all which he rebels against God and seeks the Ruin of Souls? If Men will once swallow this wicked Suggestion, may not they as well believe, that wicked Men, who are Satan's Instruments, may, by their Temp­tations, convince Persons too, and consequently that they may do at least as much Good to Souls by serving the Devil as ever they can do by serving God, seeing there is no more than a Chance-Medley in both? Is it not one of the most unjust and wicked Censures of the Age, to rank all natural Men with Pharisees, in order to condemn the Body of the Clergy of this Generation for natural Men and Pharisees; and, as if this was too little, to rank them with Devils, in order to raise Prejudices against them, to the marring of the Success of the Gospel and the Good of Souls, by their Ministry, as far as such wicked Insinuations can prevail? How much of the Pharisee Mr. T. acts herein; yea, how much he hath rejoiced the Devils in Hell by such [Page 75] Censures, we leave him, at a calm Hour, to consider. In the mean Time we recommend to his Consideration, what is written in 1 Cor. x. 1—3. Could any Thing but rash Anger and Party-Zeal, or worse, inspire a Minister of Christ, to take so much of the Devil's Part against orthodox and orderly Ministers, and the regular Exercises of Religion, upon blind (and for aught appears, or for aught he or any of his Party knows) false Guesses of their carnal State, as to many of them? Should not Mr. T. consider, whether or no what Christ told his Disciples, in Luke ix. 55. be not very applicable to him on this Account?

Qu. VII. Is not reading of Scripture an Ordinance of God's Appointment, enjoined upon natural as well as spiritual Men, for Conviction, Conversion and Edification; and is there not a Blessing pronounced upon him that readeth, in Rev. i. 3? We would therefore ask Mr. T. are not there some natural Men convinced and converted by reading the Scripture? If so, can Mr. T. give us any Reason, why a gifted natural Man's preach­ing the Word, convincingly and clearly, should be less efficacious to convince and convert others, than a natural Man's own reading the Word, when the latter may be more ignorant than the former? Or will Mr. T. tell us, that Conviction or Conver­sion by reading the Scriptures is an Effect of Chance-Medley too, in order to persuade People to cast away their Bibles, or the read­ing of them, with or after their old Pastors, that they may seek the Law wholly at the Mouth of the Priests, for the Priests Lips should keep Knowledge? But by Experience, by the Help of their Bibles, may not People know that they may utter Dreams? Well, is not it some Comfort to the old Ministers, that they are not contemned, but where the Truth and Ordi­nances of God are slighted, and juvenile Inventions, having hoary Periwigs clapt on their Heads to make them look Grave, are admired? For when the former regain their lost Credit, and the latter, by their being well viewed, lose it, may not they stand a fair Chance of being accounted honest Men again, for all this empty Noise?

4. Mr. Tennent's fourth Argument to prove, that the People are to be pitied, &c. Because the Ministry of natural Men is dan­gerous, both in respect of the Doctrines and Practice of Piety. The Doctrines of Original Sin, Justification by Faith alone, and the other Points of Calvinism, are very cross to the Grain of unrenew'd Nature. And tho' Men, by the Influence of a good Education, and [Page 76] Hopes of Preferment, may have the Edge of their natural Enmity against them blunted; yet it's far from being broken or removed: It is only the saving Grace of God, that can give us a true Relish for those Nature-humbling Doctrines; and so effectually secure us from being infected by the contrary. Is not the Carnality of the Ministry, one great Cause of the general Spread of Arminianism, Socinianism, Arianism and Deism, at this Day through the World?

Qu. I. We freely grant, that this last Argument, for Solidity, is worth all the rest; for as David once said of Goliah's Sword, none like that, 1 Sam. 21.9. so may not we say none like this? For if Mr. Tennent stands to what he says here, doth not it amount at least to thus much, That a firm Attachment to the nature-humbling Doctrines of Calvinism, is a good or at least a probable Sign of the gracious State of the Person thus attached? If so, must not the Body of our Synod, while Calvinists, pass for gracious Men? And must not Mr. T.'s Out-cries and Excla­mations against carnal Ministers and Pharisees, in order to raise Jealousies in People about their proper Pastors, appear groundless Surmises, and rash uncharitable Censures, unless such can be proven unsound in some Points of Calvinism, or else infected with somewhat that is contrary thereto? And will not this blow up the whole Fabrick at once? What will Mr. T. say, If we will venture to lay a Hundred to One, that before equal Judges we will prove, that by all Appearance, many if not all the other Side, are better attached in Principle and Practice to the Calvinistical Scheme, than he and his Party appear to be of late? Will Mr. T. engage for himself and his Party, if we engage for the other Side, to refer the Debate about carnal Men to be fairly determined, as Men can be proven to stand attached to Calvinism, or infected by what is contrary? For will not Mr. T.'s and his Party's great and publick Approbation of Mr. W—d's Scheme, which is nothing else but a motly Mixture of Enthusiasm, Popery, Arminianism, Antinomianism, and Conformity to the Liturgy and Ceremonies, cast into a Vehicle of Calvinism, put the Matter beyond Controversy with all judicious unpreju­diced Persons, viz, that those that oppose this patched Scheme are better attached to Calvinism, than the warm Admirers of it? Was not Mr. T. then very unadvised, to open a Door by this Argument, for his Opponents to put in their Stake upon such a Lay, as will be too likely to put them in a fair Way to [Page 77] win the Plate? Can Mr. T. with all his Skill in Rhetorick, varnish the Matter, so as to blunt the Edge of Truth couched in this Argument, viz. That such Men as are sound in the Faith, if their Practice be answerable, are to be accounted gracious Men? Can Mr. T. think, that he will be able with all his Oratory, to paint the Matter so as to hide the Deformity of Mr. W—d's Scheme, and of this Sermon of his, as well as of the late anarchical Disorders and Intrusions, which are so contrary to the Calvinistical Scheme, and to Scripture and Reason, and subversive of the Rights of Presbyteries, and of all regular Societies in general? Yea, may not we use Mr. T.'s own Words here, Are not they blind (or next Door to it) who do not see this? Can Mr. T. think, that the World is so little acquainted with Calvin's Doctrine, that Mr. W—d or himself will be able to per­suade judicious Men, that Calvin was an Enthusiast, or countenan­ced enthusiastick Fooleries? Can Mr. T. prove, that any of the Ministers of our Synod are any Way tainted with Arminianism, Arianism, Socinianism or Deism, let him speak out to the Point and not spare? for if there be such, why should not they be fled? If there be no grounds of Suspicion that Way, wherefore serveth the Cry about such now in a Time of Variance, but to raise groundless Jealousies? But to follow Mr. T.

Qu. II. That some Persons are afflicted with Melancholly, is too well known to themselves and others, to be denied; that the Number of such increased in many Places by the late lawless Railery and noisy Out-cries of damning and devilizing Men, under the Name and Colour of preaching Law-Terrors, when it would seem, that Men did at Seasons leave the Grace of the Gospel under the Veil, if they did not designedly draw a Veil over it, is Fact; and is it not notorious, that some weaker Vessels were put into such Frights and Shocks as caused Con­vulsions, Tremblings, Foamings at the Mouth, Workings at the Stomach, Groveling on the Ground, some as it were Swoon­ing, others making horrid Noises and Out-cries, others spurning with Legs and Hands and could not be held quiet; some after they had several of such Fits, pretended to see Lights, Visions, Apparitions, and to have had Revelations, upon which they were filled with seeming delusive Joy, such as had such Fits being thereupon proclaimed Converts, the poor deluded Souls grew confident that these Fits were Conversion-Work; and those that imbibed this Notion of them, wished themselves in the like [Page 78] Condition; the baser Sort hearing such as had them Fits admire [...] for gracious Persons, and those that had them not, censured for carnal, by all Appearance counterfeited them, if Accounts can be believed: It is granted, when Things came to this mournful Pitch of Delusion, some of our faithful Ministers ventured, notwithstanding the Rage of unreasonable Men against them, to undeceive the Deluded, by telling them that such bodily Conver­sions and Fits were not to be depended upon for Soul-Conversion, which was a Work of a quite different Nature; and upon this Account have such Ministers been proclaimed Opposers of God's Work! And if Mr. T. doth not intend this here, will he tell us, how our Ministers opposed God's Work, except Men will call the Bearing of faithful Witness against unsound Doctrine and the anarchical Practices of some disorderly Brethren, opposing of God's Work? But who are they that seem to slight spiritual Troubles, but such as study to put Men into such Distresses, rejoice to see Men in them, and ridicule those that count Despair a terrible Thing? Who are those, that dawb those that are troubled with more untempered Mortar, than those who proclaim Cries and Fits Conversion? And whether moral Negroes who have white Mouths, or immoral White Men who have black-barking Mouths, have the best Right to pass for spiritual Men?

Further in pag. 14. Mr. T. takes upon him to answer as Objection, which he was aware might be made against what he offered to prove, that a natural Man hath no Call to the Ministry, and the Objection is, "That Judas, tho' a graceless Person, was called or sent by Christ to the Ministry," to which Mr T. answers, 1. That Judas his Ministry was partly legal, insomuch as during that Period the Disciples were subject to Jewish Observances, and sent only to the House of Israel, Mat. 10.5, 6. and in that they waited after Christ's Resurrection for another Mission, Acts 1.4. which we find they obtained, and that different from the former, Mat. 28.19. 2dly, That Judas's Ministry was extraordinary necessary, in order to fulfil certain ancient Prophecies concerning him. Acts 1.16, 20. John 13.18.

Qu. I. Is it not very strange what an Influence a Biass hath upon Men otherwise penetrating, to bind them up with Ropes of Sand? For what doth Mr. T. do in his Answers here, b [...] give us full Proof, that when once a Controversy gets fair Quarter in the Affections, it will soon blow up the Understand­ing? [Page 79] We would desire to know, in what Respect was Judas's Ministry legal? Did not he preach the Gospel and baptize? Did the Disciples act as Apostles in any legal Administration? Or were they in any respect subjected to the Ceremonial Law of Moses, by their Call to be Apostles? How then was their Ministry legal? Did their being confined to the House of Israel, make their Ministry legal, while their ministerial Works were [...]ely evangelical? Wherein was the Mission, which they waited [...] after Christ's Resurrection, different from what they had [...]fore? Was it not the very same in Kind, different only in an extra-essential Circumstance, which no Way contradicted, much as disannulled the former, but confirmed the Whole of it; only it was enlarged as to the Extent of the Object? For were not they according to the second Commission to begin at Jeru­salem? Luke 24.47. Acts 3.26. Did the Extending the Com­mission to all Nations, any way exclude the Jewish Nation, to whom it was before confined? Will Mr. T. answer us, was John the Baptist's Ministry or Christ's Ministry legal, because they were subject to Jewish Observances, and sent only to the House of Israel? For doth not the latter tell us in Mat. 15.24. I am not sent but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel? Besides, if Judas's Ministry was partly legal, and the Mission given to the eleven Apostles was different in Kind from what Judas received in common with them; how could Matthias be said to take Judas his Bishoprick, as is said in Acts 1.20.? Was Matthias's Ministry also partly legal, or did he only take Judas's Ministry in part? Or was he not rather installed or ordained upon a fuller Commission, that invested him with Authority to [...] Judas's Bishoprick, and something more too? And so may not we rather justly say, that Mr. T. partly wrongs the Truth and confounds Law and Gospel, by asserting, that Judas's Ministry was partly legal? Besides we would ask Mr. T. one [...]ort Query more, viz. Whether properly speaking there were [...] y legal Ministers, but the Priests and the Levites? For might not the Prophets, even under the Old Testament Dispensation, were properly be called evangelical than legal Ministers? For [...] any say, that their Mission was any Part of the legal [...]pensation? On the other Hand, tho' it were supposed, [...]ntrary to Truth, that Judas's Ministry was partly legal; yet that says that to the evangelical Part of his Office? Must not [...]at which was peculiar to the New Testament require Grace to [Page 80] fulfil it still? And even as to the legal Part, if there was such, was not Grace as necessary to fulfil a legal Ministry in due manner as an evangelical One? Or did God require no more from legal Ministers but empty Ceremonies? Or would Grace spoil a legal Minister? And so may not we say, O rare Distinction! which is both false; and if it were true, what is it but an empty Sound, good for Nothing but to blindfold the Matter and the Hearer?

Qu. II. Is not Mr. T's second Answer as weak and of as little Force as the former? We must own, that we do not well understand what it is that Mr. T. means, by saying, That Ju­das's Ministry was extraordinary necessary, in order to fulfil anti­ent Prophecies concerning him: is not there something less or something more than the Truth here? However, That Judas his Ministry was extraordinary, is readily granted; but yet, can any imagine, but that Grace was as necessary to fulfil an ex­traordinary Office as to fulfil an ordinary one? But will Mr. T. tells us, what extraordinary Necessity was there of fulfilling the Prophecies concerning Judas his Ministry, more than for the fulfilling of all other Divine Prophecies, as for Instance, the Prophecy concerning the Coming of the grievous Wolves into the Church of Ephesus, concerning the Coming of Anti-Christ, and of false Christs, and of the Perillousness of the latter Days, because of the false Teachers and the Degeneracy of Professors? Was the Ministry of Judas any more necessary to fulfil Pro­phecies, than the Ministry of the Asses Colt to carry Christ to Jerusalem? For was it not as necessary, that the Prophecy in Zech. ix. 9. concerning this, should be fulfilled, as any Pro­phecies concerning Judas? Matth. xxi. 4, 5. Besides, was there any Necessity, that God should make any Prophecies con­cerning Judas's Ministry; but only God's good Will and Plea­sure to order Matters so? And if there was any or the least Inconsistency with God's holy Perfections or his revealed Will, in his giving a Call to an unconverted Judas, under the New-Testament Dispensation; might not God easily have prevented that necessity, by decreeing and prophesying in another Man­ner? And even after this Prophesy was made, was not there as great Necessity to fulfil every other divine Prophesy, when ones made, as there was to fulfil the Prophesies concerning Judas? For did not God's Truth, Faithfulness and Immutableness, bind him to fulfil all, as much as any one of his Prophecies? Where [Page 81] then is there Room for this extraordinary Necessity to take Place? Is not this a false and an empty Sound as well as the former?

Qu. III. As for the Abuse made of the Instance of Judas's Ministry, let those that are guilty look to that, we are only for getting what Light and Instruction that Part of Scripture affords us; for is not that wrote for our Instruction, as well as the rest of our Bibles? But as for Halters, if they were not thrown in [...] Way, might not we well let them alone, as what no way (as we know of) belong to either Side in this Controversy, to feel or to handle? For whatever Evil may be supposed to be in Men's different Apprehensions in religious Matters, or even in Men's different States, as to Grace, hath not God and Man judged Halters unfit Engines for zealous Kirk-men among Pro­testants to handle? And can there be any Room to fear, that they shall be entrusted in such Hands, but where Lord Inquisitors are first chosen to make Inquisition into, and Discoveries of the unknown Land of Conscience? Till therefore we hear Rumours of the one, what need Protestants be afraid of the other? But seeing such Tools are good for nothing but to break the Neck, and not to convince the Judgment; have not we Reason to bless God for wise Rulers and an equitable Constitution, which adjudge them to proper Persons and Crimes? And is it not the Duty of all Christians, earnestly to pray, that God may in Mercy preserve Men from such a Degree of Despair, and all the native Causes of it, as may drive Men into Halters undeser­vedly, as well as from such Practices as may justly deserve them? Let none say, that this is the last Shift of legal Preach­ing.

In page 15. Mr. T. endeavours to take off the Force of ano­ther Objection, taken from Paul's rejoycing at the Gospel's being preached by some, out of Envy and Contention, and not sincerely, Phil. 1.

Qu. I. Is not Mr. T's Answer so weak and feeble, that one night justly think, that his Cause would have appeared every whit as good and strong, if he had not at all meddled with the Objection, unless it be with those, who are disposed to take every Thing Mr. T. says and writes, upon an implicite Faith? For though it be allowed, that the Apostle was well versed in [...]e Doctrine of Self-Denial, which made him easy about his [...]me and Character, as it was a personal Interest, counting it [Page 82] but a small Matter to be judged by Man's Judgment; yet, as his Character subserved the Credit of the Gospel, was not he a zealous Maintainer and Defender of it, in Opposition to the false Apostles, who endeavoured to raise their own by vain-glo­rious Boastings, and to blacken and eclipse the Apostle's Cha­racter, by Clamours and Misrepresentations, as knowing that they could not overturn his Cause, unless first they could wound his Character, no more than the Pharisees could Christ's? Can any unbyassed Reader think, but that the Apostle's Joy or Rejoycing, there spoken of, was upon the Account of the Preaching of Christ, as a Saviour, to lost Sinners, when he plainly says, What then? notwithstanding every Way, whether in Pretence, or in Truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice? Where have we in the Text the least Grounds for the idle Glosses Mr. T. makes here, intimating that the Apostle's Joy or Rejoicing was upon the Account that such Preaching as is aforesaid, gave him an Opportunity to exercise Self Denial, or should be a Means to promote his spiritual Progress in Goodness, and perhaps prove a Mean to procure his temporal Freedom? Was not giving Way to the like fertile Invention, in glossing upon Scripture the very Method by which Pharisee Doctors formed their Gemara upon their Misnah, and of both framed their Tal­mud, whereby they at last quite evacuated Scripture of its proper Sense?

Qu. II. Doth not Mr. T. here plainly give up the Cause, and allow the Objection its full Force, when he says, the Apostle would rather, that Christ should be preached out of Envy, than not at all; because their Preaching might be a Means of curing the gross Ignorance of Gospel Doctrine reigning in that Age? Doth not he here seem to make a fair Concession, that uncon­verted Ministers might do good to Souls, by turning them from Darkness to Light, and why not, from the Power of Satan unto God? For seeing, as the same Apostle notes elsewhere, that unsanctified Knowledge puffeth up, but edifieth not, as in 1 Cor. viii. 1. How could he, agreeable to his own Doctrine, rejoice at such Preaching, if he did not believe, that the Knowledge conveyed thereby might be sanctified? We entirely agree with Mr. T. that the Apostle's Joy was a comparative Joy, for how could any knowing Objector dream, that the Apostle should rejoice as much at such Preaching, as if it was done sincerely? Seeing therefore Mr. T. seems to grant the main Thing con­tended [Page 83] for, in this Objection, doth not it appear needless, to follow him in his conjectural Glosses any further? For do not the Apostle's Words plainly import thus much at least, viz. That the Preaching of Christ and the Gospel in Purity, what­ever Men's secret Designs be therein, good or bad, yet the Work done, affords Matter of Joy to the pious Soul? Will Men then consider, what Sort of a Spirit sways such, who en­deavour to suppress orthodox Preaching of the Gospel, upon meer Guesses of the Preacher's unconverted State, if not the Spirit of Envy?

3. Mr. T's third doctrinal Query, is, How Pity should be shewn, on this mournful Occasion, to the World, now groaning under the intolerable Burthen of unconverted Ministers: And his Answer is,

1. By mourning for and sympathizing with them, with compas­sionate Tenderness.

Qu. I. Was it not a pretty Piece of Machiavelian Policy in wicked Jezebel, to proclaim a Fast to mourn for Naboth's Sin, when the Eye-sore was Naboth's Vineyard; which could not be procured for Money, and therefore must be purchased at the vast Expence of false Swearing and cruel Murder, coloured over with the Paint of a religious Fast? And who better pre­pared for such a Fast as was designed, than an Ahab, that was sick and bedrid with Discontent? Is not mournful moaning of a Child that hath got a Fall, the ready Way to make him cry heartily, tho' he is not hurt?

2. Mr. T's second Answer, is, That this Pity is to be shewn, by praying for them with Earnestness.

Qu. I. When like People, like Priest, is an old Scripture Phrase, how comes it to pass, that in this Age, the Crowds of the People in most Places are exceeding Godly, but the Body of the Clergy exceeding carnal? When there is such Talk of tender Pity and earnest Prayer for the godly People, as being in a poor melancholy State, is it not a little strange, that there is not a Word of Pity, nor of Prayer, for the unconverted Minis­ters, who are supposed to be in a much poorer State, neither in this Instruction, nor in the whole Sermon? Are they so far gone, that they are unfit to be prayed for, or to have a little Room in some Corner of the new Kalender; Is the Prayer that they may be converted, or detected, or confounded, which some use, a Piece of Supererogation? Are not orthodox, regular [Page 84] Ministers as fit to be prayed for, as an heterodox disorderly Iti­nerant? Is it not a little strange, that when he was directing to pray for a Blessing upon the dry Morsels, got in dry Pastures, and from dry Nurses, that Mr. T. did not think it proper, to direct Men to pray for Heaven's Blessing or Influence, to increase the Grass of the one, and the Milk of the other? If Mr. T. rightly applies that Text in Jer. xxiii. 32. to the proper Per­sons, when it is expresly said, that those there intended should not at all profit God's Israel, how can such a Prayer for sanc­tifying and sweetning their dry Morsels be made in Faith? Doth not Mr. T's pressing Men to pray as aforesaid, imply, that he hath some Hopes, that such Prayers of the Godly may conduce to render such Preaching successful; and is not this more Ap­pearance of Charity, than seems to be reconcileable to his Ex­pressions elsewhere? For if there be any Grounds at all for the Soul to rest in Hope, in the Use of such Prayers, must not there be some greater Probability of obtaining the Blessing prayed for, than a meer Chance-Medley?

3. In pag. 16. Mr. T. goes on to a third Direction, how to shew Pity in this sorrowful Case, and that is, by liberal Contri­butions to encourage private Schools and Seminaries of Learning, which are under the Care of skilful and experienced Christians, in order to educate Youth for the Ministry.

The Motion, for aught we know, is very good, and if Congregations in general would contribute a little that way, may it not be of some Consequence, for an after Supply? Only we would desire to know, how such a Design can be carried on better for the common Interest, than by putting such a School under the Care and Inspection of the Synod? But yet, tho' we would not be so far misinterpreted, as if we spoke any thing against encouraging such Schools, for we believe it a very good Motion; yet is it not observable, that when Mr. T. makes such Out-cries against Hirelings, yet he himself expects some Fruit from Gospel-Hearers, more than cheap Prayers, when it would seem, that he judges it too great a Favour for such Ministers, whose hard Lot it is to be accounted unconverted upon Guesses, to have a Share of People's cheap Prayers; albeit it is well known, that the Ministers thus abused, at least many of them, have had their great Share in planting and watering those very Congregations, in which upstart Innovators now so much crow over them? We would further ask, Whether the unpecedented [Page 85] Strictness in the Admission of Scholars; which Mr. T. prescribes here, viz. That none should be admitted into such Schools, but such as have plain Evidences of experimental Religion, be approve­able or unreasonable? Would it not be soon enough to require this of a Candidate, when he enters upon Trials? Or might not Godly Tutors be probable Instruments of Conversion in the Youth under their Care? And doth not Experience tell us, that Youth under Tutorage have strangely altered, some for the Better, and some for the Worse? But Mr. T. insinuates, that he had some Apprehensions, that the Pharisees would be against such a Proposal; if he intends by Pharisees, the Ministers of our Synod, who are at some Variance with him, for who else can be thought to concern themselves with our Schools; might not he know the Contrary by the Motion that was on Foot last Year in our Synod, for such a School to be erected among us, under the Care and Inspection of the Synod? And if Mr. T. intends the Ministers of our Synod in another Insinuation, viz. his saying, if they could help it, they would not let one faithful Man come into the Ministry; and when it is notorious, that Mr. T. never had any Debates with any others but the Synod about Admissions of Men into the Ministry; and when there is a Debate on this Head depending between him and the Synod; how can any understand them of any other? Did any pro­fessing the Christian Religion among the Non-Conformists, shew themselves so bare-facedly void of Charity and more cruel in rash Judging than Mr. T. does appear in these Words? Is it not hard for his Brethren, that are thus abused, to entertain a favourable Opinion of his Christianity, who appears so mon­strously void of Truth and Charity, as these Words import? For can their very worst Enemies, if they have any such, say that they ever admitted any into the Ministry, but such as had at the Time of their Admission, a good Appearance of Piety? And if it happened afterwards, that any such discovered any Unsoundness in Doctrine or Irregularity in Practice, have not his Brethren acted as faithful a Part in bearing Witness against such in a Way of regular Discipline, as ever he or any of his Party did? Tho' 'tis probable, they did not publickly libel them, in a blind Way, nor make disorderly publick general Exclamations against them, after the new Mode, which we judge uncivil as well as unchristian, as being contradictory to Reason and the Rules of Scripture-Discipline, which teacheth [Page 86] us that all Authority and Church Power is given for Edification, and not for Destruction, as it is written in 2 C [...]. 10.8. and 13.10. For how can any Set of Men clear themselves or satisfy others, when wrongly traduced in such a blind Anti-Christian Way? And do not such as use such Methods, copy more after the Pharisees in aspersing Christ and his true Followers, or after Ovid, who in his Rage cursed Caesar under the feigned Name of Ibis, than after Christ, who tho' tis true, reproved both the Pharisees and Sadducees sharply, yet were not those Names the distinguishing Characters of particular Sects, known by their distinguishing Principles and Practices, among whom he lived? And doth not he always point out some particular false Doctrine or Male-practice, which he reproved them for? How contrary then to his Practice are Men's dark Insinuations, Re­proaches and blind Pushes made at the Characters of some Ministers, under the Umbrage of crying against Pharisee-Teachers and carnal Ministers? For if some of our Ministers be not intended, why is this Noise made now in a Time of some Variance in our Congregations, to raise groundless Jealousies and Suspicions? And if some of them be intended, why are not they prosecuted in a Way of regular Discipline? For how else can such Exclaimers clear their own Consciences towards such, or convince their Hearers of their Integrity, or direct them in rejecting unworthy Ministers, if such there be among us? For if Hearers go to act herein by blind Guesses upon general Out-cries against we know not whom, nor for what, will it not be something worse than their acting upon an implicit Faith? But to return to the Matter in Hand; if it be enquired, where these private Schools or Academies might be had, and who are the Masters? Altho' Mr. T. doth not particularly point them out in his Sermon, yet if we compare what is here said, wish what Mr. T. (as we are informed) declared publickly in the last Synod, will it not put the Matter in clearer Light? For was it not remarkable, that when the Synod was cognoscing upon the Proposal then under Consideration, concerning erecting a publick School to train up Men for the Ministry, that Mr. T. openly disapproved said Proposal? And was not the Reason he then gave of his Disapprovement, because he believed said Proposal was levelled against his Father's School? Will not this, together with some concurring Circumstances of the same Nature, which we may declare if Need be, afford us a probable Commentary [Page 87] upon this Direction of Mr. T.? So that tho' he speaks of private Schools in the plural Number; yet doth not it seem likely, that his Father's School is the only One he wants to be encouraged with liberal Contributions? And if so, what is the Meaning of that solemn Epiphonema or Exclamation, Who is upon God's Side? Who? but this, Who will contribute to my Father's School? Who?

It were endless to follow Mr. T. in all his blind Pushes; but will he tell us, what he means by the Kingdom and Credit, which the Pharisees are wont to be scared about? When both his Partizans as well as we understand, that this is levelled against some of our Ministers, we cannot but think that we make a nearer Guess of the Persons aimed at in those Words, than is made of Men's carnal and gracious State oft by those that make high Pretences of being spiritual Men, or else let Mr. T. confute us. We would therefore ask, Hath Mr. T. ever heard any of our whole Party uttering the least Mum in the Behalf of the Title of any King in our Dominions, but King JESUS and King George, ever since the latter came to the Throne? Must not this be a blind Push to blacken Men's Credit, or else a sly and sneaking Method to secure the Favour of Grandees or Applause of the People to a Party? Or must it not be to incense them against others, Pharisee-like, who said to Pilate, Thou art not Caesar's Friend, if thou let this Man go; Whosoever maketh him­self King, speaketh against Caesar? But tho' we are confident our wise and good Rulers understand our Constitution better, than to be incensed against any Man upon meer Slanders and false Surmises, especially when they consider there are some Out-cries made against the Christianity of some Civil as well as Ecclesiasti­cal Rulers, by some of the same Catholick Knot, who in spight of Right and Truth, would take from all others that differ from them the very Name of true Christianity, by miscalling them carnal Men and Pharisees; yet doth not Experience prove, that any vain and false Out-cry may do Wonders with the giddy Multitude, to drive them into Disorders? But if Truth be told, who are those among us who seem to meddle with State Affairs more than those who in a blind Zeal make some faint Essays, in some Sermons, to revive the Debates about the solemn League and Covenant? But suppose a Knot of Gentlemen, by their Libels, Reproaches, disorderly Exclamations and Misrepresenta­tions of Ministers, have brought their Credit as low as they can [Page 88] wish in the Books of their warm Admirers, as well as advanced their own high, by their vain-glorious Boastings and Noise of Catholicism, and of Zeal for Reformation, &c, is it Christian-like or Gentleman-like to triumph over those that are down? For besides that the Wheel always goes round, hath not every Leaf two Sides, and every Controversy two Parties? May not their Credit be as high in the Books of their Party, as Mr. T.'s is in those of his Party? And if Mr. T. does not take better Care to look what he preaches and writes than he seems to have done in this, may not there be Danger, that the Wheel will turn faster to its proper Place than it was forced out of it? But why should Men fight for a Bundle of Straw? Did not he that of all Men had the best Claim to a good Name, an high Credit, and a glorious Reputation, know what it was one Day to hear the Multitude crying, Hosanna to the Son of David, shortly after hear the Multitudes in the same City crying out, Crucify him, with as much Fervency? Was not Paul and Barnabas, as we read in Acts 14. in Danger of being Deified? And yet, when designing Jews, it may be of the Sect of the Pharisees, came to Lystra and misrepresented the Apostles, was not their Credit so low, that Paul was stoned and dragged out of the City? Here were two Conversions, and Men were very zealous in both; and would not Men do well to consider, whether we have not many like them? But was it not good Advice, whoever gave it, He that wishes well to his own due Praises, let him never desire they should be yoked with another's unjust Reproaches, lest the Hearer, knowing the one unrighteously slandered, conclude that the other is as unjustly flattered; For is it not an unquestionable Maxim, that he that will be a Sycophant against one, will be a Parasite to another? And should not Men that have great Credit, of all others, take heed how they improve it?

But to come to the Improvement.

Qu. I. Doth not Mr. T. in his first Inference, discover the Mark or Butt of all the bitter Arrows, which he hath been shooting against the Pharisee-Teacher, viz. the Body of the Clergy of this Generatiom? And lest any Body should be in Danger of mistaking him, by thinking, that he means only the heterodox Clergy, who have swerved from the Form of sound Words; doth not he come nearer to the Purpose by saying, That some of the modern Pharisees Prate (for that is a diminutive [Page 89] Word, forsooth, for Preaching, to help the little Credit of the Clergy) more orthodoxly about the New-Birth, than their Prede­cessor Nicodemus? And if by these latter be not intended the Body of the Ministers of our Synod, why do Mr. T's own Par­tizans interpret the Matter so, as if they were the Persons here pointed out? For will any tell us, where we, at such a Distance from Mr. T. himself, can learn the true Meaning of such Ex­pressions better, than from the declared near Guesses of such as call themselves spiritual Men? For is it not probable, that they might hear more of the Matter in the Conclave than is told in the Publick? And have not some of our Ministers, that are both orthodox and regular, been proclaimed carnal Men and Hypocrites, more publickly, without any just Charge tabled against them, that deserved a just Reproof, much less such a merciless Cen­sure? Is all this no Grounds to appear against such base Out­cries to raise unjust Prejudices, albeit, Men have no Conscious­ness of Guilt in the Matter? If therefore Mr. T. can prove any Articles of Charge, of any Weight, against any of his Bre­thren, why doth not he appear against them in the Way of regular Discipline, so that they may be rejected, if they deserve it? And have not Messrs. T. and B—r been desired to do this in our Presbytery, and yet refused to comply? What will Mr. T. think of a late Writer, who says, It was an hateful Spirit in Cain, the Companion of a bloody Principle, that made him say, Am I my Brother's Keeper? And we do generally find that Person, who is backward to be his Brother's Keeper in an evan­gelical, forward enough to be his Murderer in a moral Consider­ation: but let Brotherly Love continue. But to trace the Matter a little further, 1, One Branch of the heavy Charge against the Clergy, is, That Swarms of Locusts, Crowds of Pharisees, have as covetously as cruelly, crept into the Ministry, in this adul­terous Generation! who as nearly resemble the Character given of the old Pharisees, in the Doctrinal Part of this Discourse, as me Crow's Egg does another. And to strike Home, this is said to be the Case of the Body of the Clergy of this Generation. Hear your Charge, your heavy Charge, O ye Clergy! Come to the Bar, answer to your Indictment, or else, must not you be damn'd at once? For is it not Part of the new Mode of Preaching, when some Men come across the Word Condemned in a Scripture Text, to chuse to read it damm'd; whether because this Mode is less Scriptural, or because they would [Page 90] conform to the usual Dialect of roaring Boys; let them answer that? If the Attorney for the Defendant, Judge, or Jury, call for the Evidence, to prove this heavy Charge, is not the main and only Evidence this, They are blind, who do not see this to be the Case! There is your Charge, and there is your Evidence, and if Judge or Jury be so saucy as to desire more Clearness in the Matter before they pronounce Judgment, let them know their Doom beforehand; for is it not past all Doubt, that, by the last rehearsed Clause, they are damn'd for blind Men already, if they offer to demur in the Case? Are not these big Words and bold Say-soes, uttered with that Confidence, which bad Men commonly assume, that would be believed in an unproved Fals­hood? Is not this a brave ready Way to conjure down any Con­troversy at once, and to blow up the Castle of the Credit of the whole Body of the Clergy with a single Puff of vain corrupt Breath? Let none ask, is this powerful Preaching? For is it not all Thunder, without the least Flash of Lightning? And what is the Sum of it but this, I know it, I believe it, I assert it, and I will stand to it, and I will damn him that will say, Nay? But then, if any one should say, in the Behalf of the Clergy with their storm-beaten Credit, are not many of them orthodox, and for aught that is proven against them, live regu­larly? And doth not Mr. T. in the Doctrinal Part, own, That nothing but the Grace of God, can give Men a true Relish of the Nature-humbling Doctrines of Calvinism, and effectually secure them from being infected by the contrary? What will Mr. T. then say to those, who are of a longer Standing than himself in the Ministry, and yet seem fully as well, if not better at­tached to these Doctrines, than he and his Party seem to be of late? Can this ward off the Blow? No, no: For have not we a. 2d. Branch of the Charge, which shall do the Execution of blowing up all such Pleas? behold! it comes, It is true, some of the modern Pharisees have learnt to prate a little more ortho­doxly, about the New-Birth, than their Predecessor Nicodemus, who are, in the mean time, as great Strangers to the feeling Ex­perience of it, as he. Surely! Do not these Men feel well, who feel for themselves and all the World besides? But how shall we steer now, for are not we gone into some Latitude beyond the Thirty-two Points of the Seaman's Compass? And so, is not the Matter past Trial, at the Bar of Man, or even of Angels? For when Men prate orthodoxly, tho' they were such Bunglers [Page 91] as not to be able to preach, how can Mr. T. prove, that they are as great Strangers to the feeling Experiences of the New-Birth, as Nicodemus, or even, that they are greater Strangers to it than himself, seeing it is no false Latin to say, that he cannot search the Heart? And on the other Hand, how can the Cler­gy prove their feeling Experiences, when it is a Maxim in Di­vine, as well as human Law, that no Man is a proper Evidence in his own Case? Unless therefore Mr. T. can prove, that he sees other Men's inward Feelings, and that they are heterodox, when their Words are orthodox, must not he be nonsuited in all our lower Courts, and consequently must not the Trial be adjourned to the great Assizes, at King Jesus's Bench, at once, unless some can be so happy, as to produce authentick Commis­sions, under the Broad Seal, to constitute them general Vicars, to judge the Secrets of other Men, by Feelings? Indeed, it must be owned, that Mr. T. hath acted a dexterous Part, in painting the Pharisee with two opposite Faces, under one Hood, so that if Men are orthodox, letter-learned and regular, or the contrary, they still answer the Character given to the Pharisee; and must not Mr. T. have some cunning Art, beyond what is common to Man, if he can paint his own Face, so that it will not an­swer either of the Pharisees Faces, and be a good Man too? But if the News be true, that Pharisees are now become ortho­dox and regular, let alone their letter-learning, we would ask, whether such Pharisees ought not to pass, with Men, for brighter Christians than Mr. W. or T. or their Adherents, until they reject openly Mr. W's false Scheme, as well as the false Divi­nity contained in this Sermon, together with their late anarchi­cal Tenets and Practices, which are inconsistent with Truth and Gospel-Order? And seeing the New-Birth is the only Point here touched, will Mr. T. tell us, who of our Ministers of the other Side, appear to grope so much in the Dark about the Doctrine of it, as Mr. W. seems to do, when one while he makes it a spiritual Conception of Christ, as the Seed of the Wo­man, in the Hearts of Believers? And another while, doth not he seem to make it the Work of the Minister, to regenerate those that are baptized by him, by asserting, that Christ gave a Commission to his Apostles, and their Successors in the Ministry, to baptize Men into the Nature of the Holy Trinity? Another while, doth not he seem to make it Man's own Work, when he presses Men, as sunk into the Nature of the Beast and the [Page 92] Devil, to believe in Christ, in order to receive the quickening or sanctifying Spirit? How will Mr. T. prove, that this Man seek well, when it appears to ordinary Capacities, he doth not speak well in this, and many other weighty Points of Doctrine? Will Mr. T. name us that orthodox pious Writer, that is guilty of such a monstrous Degree of Uncharitableness and rash Judging, as seems to be couched in those Charges against the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, when he thus unmercifully and groundlesly draws his Censures thro' their Hearts, without pro­ving one single Charge against them, in Principle or Practice, but on the contrary, owns them orthodox? Might not such Language, without Surprize, provoke some Acrimony or Re­partee, if it were not that our Lord forbids, to render Railing for Railing? May not we therefore rather chuse to pray, that God may in his due Time, put a Stop to such reproachful Tongues and Pens, which in this particular seem to be subser­vient to his Interest, who is the Father of Lies, and the great Accuser of the Brethren? In the mean time, what is the Com­fort of such pious Ministers, who are thus condemned without any Trial, but that they well know, that it is but a small Thing to be judged of Man's Judgment, and that the righteous Judge of the Quick and the Dead, who stands at the Door and sits at the Helm, will one Day overhall such rash Judgments, and dis­cover who are Holy, and who are Strangers to the Feelings of the New-Birth? In the mean time, we wish Mr. T. no worse, than to see his Error in Time, in thus offending against the Generation of God's Children; for tho' every Bean hath its black, and every Rank of People their Cullers, yet, may not we on good Grounds hope, that God hath many a precious Saint in the Body of the Clergy of this Generation? But who are those that increase the Adultery of this Generation more than such, who forsake their own Charges, and industriously enter into other Men's Labours; who use sneaking Methods, to alienate the Hearts of People from their stated Pastors, to affect and follow them; and who intrude into Vacancies, in the Bounds of other Presbyteries, in order to withdraw them from their proper Watchmen and to turn them to their Party; and where they cannot gain the whole, encourage Divisions, that there may be Adultery however, where-ever they can find or make Holes, even tho' they are obliged to make their En­trance at Back-Doors? And doth not the doleful Case of the [Page 93] Church of God, upon this Account, call more loudly for bitter Lamentation, than upon any other, lest the tottering Candle-Sticks, that hold forth the Light of God's Word in Purity, be removed, and we be left to wander after glaring Sights and Feelings, under the thick Clouds of enthusiastick Dreams?

But to proceed to the Second Inference.

Qu. I. Is not Mr. T. in his second Inference, as hard and bitter upon the Hearers of such Ministers, or those that content themselves under their Ministry, as he is in the first upon the Ministers themselves? For are not they condemned as such as have not in them the Temper of Christ, and are not they called as blind as Moles, as dead as Stones, poor Fools, poor silly Souls, with­out any spiritual Taste or Relish?

Qu. II. Will Mr. T. tell us, Whether the Caution Christ gave, not to call our Brother a Fool, was given to the Laity, or Clergy, or to both? For what puzzles us is, that we have heard something of some Privilege called the Benefit of the Clergy, and we would know, whether there be some secret Law that gives the Clergy Liberty to revile, rail at, abuse and reproach their Hearers, if they do it under the Name or Pre­tence of Preaching? For if it be true, that God's Law forbids the natural Man to meddle in sacred Things, may not there be some Law, that gives the spiritual Man Liberty to use his Tongue as if it was his own? Or else why is there so much of this done by some? Or is there some Mystery in the declining State of the Church that warrants this? If Ministers go to rail in the Pulpit, can there be any solid Reason given, why the People should not have Liberty to answer them? What is the Reason, why by the Laws of England, Noblemen have the Privilege that none of them can be bound to the Peace, but because the Peace is supposed to be always bound to them? And can Gospel-Ministers think, that they should have Liberty to crow over their Hearers any longer than they are the Messengers of Truth and Peace? Will Mr. T. tell us, what sort of Creatures are those, that count meer Railery, bold Assertions, bitter Invectives, and clamorous Exclamations, powerful Preaching? Does Mr. T. think, that People are silly, because they are silent, or because they will not stoop to kiss the Pope's Toe, in order to be made Saints; or because they will not go over the River to fetch muddy Water, when they have much clearer Water running in their own Spouts, and at their Doors? Would it not be good Advice to [Page 94] Mr. W-d and T. to winnow their Seed a little better than they seem to have done of late, lest they provoke some of these silent Fellows, to speak rough-hewn Scotch or Welsh to them? For have not such silent Fellows time to think, and their Fortunes at command? Can any then think but that they dare speak the Truth bare-facedly, without Palliation? Can Mr. T. think that abusing People at this odd Rate, is the Way to proselite any People, but those of whose Intellectuals he hath just Cause to think nothing but what is mean and contemptible, or else are some way disaffected to their own Ministers, or their Fellow-Members? But in case we were such silly Souls, is not the Cure easy? For if we take good Courage to rail at our own Ministers and Presbyterial Order, wink hard, and lift up our Legs, so as not to stumble at Mr. W-d's and T.'s Errors and Disorders, resign our Reasons by taking other Men to see, feel, taste, relish and judge for us; may not we hope to hear ourselves proclaimed Converts for all this? And seeing Mr. T. would have us consider Jer. v. 30.31. We have done it; and now propose this short Query thereupon, viz. Is it not Fact, that Mr. W—d pretends to an immediate Call and Mission; to act and think by the immediate Guidance of a divine Inspiration; and yet doth not he preach and print many Falshoods? Doth not Mr. T. and his Party get greater Sway by his means, viz. his proclaiming them faithful Ministers of Christ, &c.? And do not many of the People love to have it so? And is not the Beginning of these Things the Beginning of Sorrow? And must not Time answer what the End of them will be? But can it be expected, that sowing Thistles will produce a better Return than a Crop of Thorns? Further, seeing it is our Turn to speak, We wou'd have Mr. T. consider, whether or no he discovers Prudence, Piety, or even great Experience of the Difficulties which pious Souls are exposed to in this Valley of Tears, in his reflecting in such a taunting scoffing manner upon Ministers and People, for counting Despair a terrible Thing, and cautioning People against it? Who can believe Mr. T. is in earnest? For is not Despair really a terrible Thing? Is it not one of the greatest Sins that Men can be guilty of under Gospel Light and Offers, upon many Accounts? And if we consider it as a Punishment; is it not a little Hell upon Earth to the Soul that is burdened with it? And is it not one of the worst Ingredients of the Misery of damned Souls? For how could their Misery be compleat if they had but Glimmerings of [Page 95] Hope? What Temptations more dreadful than those which Despair disposes the Soul to fall in with, if preventing or restraining Grace steps not in? And hath not the false Doctrine so much harped upon, viz. that every one that is in a State of Grace, knows it, a native Tendency to draw weak and doubting Christians into Despair, as well as to hinder their Comfort? For how can any answer it to God or their own Consciences, when duly awakened, if they drive Men to Despair by meer Falshoods, when in Reality they betray the true Scripture Doc­trine of Assurance by such blind Pushes? For when professed Calvinists assert, that all true Christians have Assurance, which is the same as knowing that we are in a State of Grace, when their Opponents can prove, that many true Christians are under Fears and Doubts, and that others arrive no higher than a well-pounded Hope; will not this have a native Tendency to render [...]e very Doctrine of Assurance more suspicious to the Contrary-minded? And so what do Men do by such blind Pushes, but on the one Hand betray Truth with a broad Kiss, and on the other [...]and form a Club to its Antagonist, to dash out its Brains? Besides, are not Ministers as great, if not greater Debtors to the Weak, than the Strong? Should not they therefore feed them with Milk, if they are not able to endure strong Meat? For is not he an unmerciful and an unnatural Father, that gives a Child crying for Bread, a Stone to break his Teeth, or crying for Fish, a Scorpion to poison him, by telling him a rough terrifying Error instead of Truth, in order to cast him from Fear to Despair?

3. As to the third Inference we approve of it?

4. As to the fourth Inference, which seems to have been the main Scope of the Performance, viz. To dissolve all relative Bonds and Ties between Pastor and People, at least to proclaim them null and void, as to People's Obligation therefrom to attend upon the Administrations of their own fixed Pastors statedly; so that if we take Mr. T. up right, his declared Judgment here is, that People, after the Choice of a Minister to be their stated Pastor, are at their free Liberty to absent themselves from his Ministry, as far and as often as they or any of them pleases, whether the Minister be godly or graceless: If godly, then the Opinion of another's superiour Gifts, yea, the Judgment or In­clination of any Person, or even the Conceit or Hope of getting greater Benefit elsewhere, are pleaded by Mr. T. to be sufficient [Page 96] Reasons for any Person to leave his own Pastor, and to go for ordinary to hear another, (for occasional Hearing is out of the Question;) much more if any of them guesses that his Minister is a carnal Man, then he ought to leave him; so that there seems to be a wide Door opened for any Member to desert his Minister upon any kind of Distaste or Dissatisfaction, without being accountable to any about it.

To prevent Mistakes, we shall premise a few preliminary Questions, then state the Matter, and afterwards examine the main Hinges of Argument used by Mr. T. here.

Qu. I Let it be granted, that People may go to hear other Ministers besides their own occasionally, without Offence; yet is it not too great a Stride to argue from thence, that Men may make a common Practice of this? For doth not the latter carry in it a plain Contempt of the sacred Administration of their own Minister, and many other Evils? And to pretend to do this in a Spirit of Meekness, when no apparent Reason is assigned, what is it better than a Judas's Kiss? Can any like Jacob's smooth Voice, when he feels Esau's rough Hands and heavy Fists?

Qu. II. Let it be granted, that Men may go without Offence to hear other orthodox and regular Ministers at Seasons, besides their own; yet will not the Case alter, if Men are heterodox or blemished in their Doctrine, or disorderly in their Manner of Entrance, whereby the Rights and sacred Order of Religious Societies are infringed?

Qu. III. Let it be granted, that People may to go hear other Ministers, that are for carrying on the common Interest in an united peaceable Way and Manner, by endeavouring to streng­then the Hands of the stated Pastors, and to cultivate a good Understanding between Pastors and People; yet will not the Cause alter, if Itinerants use divisive factious Methods in the most bare-faced manner, by crying up themselves, and exclaim­ing against all but their own Party, setting up Threshold against Threshold, and Altar against Altar, encouraging Factions, by pressing People to forsake their own Ministers, whether they are gracious or graceless?

Qu. IV. Let it be granted, that if Men can prove any Articles of Charge against their Minister in Doctrine, Disci­pline or Deportment, that they ought to be heard, and that Ministers and People ought to be dealt with accordingly; and [Page 97] that if after due Trial to accommodate Matters in a Gospel-Way, the Party offending proves obstinate, and will not submit to Gospel-Rules, that then the injured Party should be set at Liberty; if Matters are come to that Heighth, which ought to be the last Remedy; ye [...] more, let it be granted, that if People acting a conscientious Part, can produce any true Account, that may satisfy impartial judicious Persons, that they have proved any Charges of Weight against their Ministers, for which they ought in Justice to be discarded, but were kept in, contrary to Rule; if after patient Writing and due Remonstrances of just Grievances, in lower and higher Judicatures, People sail to get the Causes of just Offence removed, that then the People may and ought, in Obedience to God and the Dictates of their own Consciences, to seek for the best Expedient they can get else­where; but yet, can any prove from any Part of Scripture, that any thing will warrant the common Practice of insulting the sacred Administrations of our own stated Pastors, but what will warrant a total Separation from such? And will any say, that a Separation from a Church, with which we have [...]ined accor­ding to Scripture Rule, can be regular, without we first produce apparent Reasons, that may come within the Verge of other Men's Cognizance, to cognosce upon, and make use of Christ's appointed Method, to get our Grievances removed, in the U [...]e of regular Discipline, established in such Communities? And will any tell us, what is Schism, if it b [...] not such an abrupt, disorderly, uncharitable, proud and obstinate breaking off from Church Communion, upon secret Surmises, as Mr. T. seems to encourage People to here? And ought not all orderly Non-conformists, to bear a publick Testimony against, and Abhor­rence of such impious Insinuations, as have a native Tendency to wound and expose Religion, and the Credit of its true Pro­fessors, to the Derision of its Opposers?

Having premised thus much, we come now to state the Debate.

Qu. I. Is not the Relation between Pastor and People a sacred and a solemn Tie or Bond, as clearly warranted by God's Word, as any other Relation whatsoever? And do not the Beauty and Power of Religion, as to the Publick Exercises of it, consist in the regular and conscientious D [...]c [...]ge of the mutual Duties of this Relation, by the Continuance of Min [...]s and People in Unity and Fellowship; and then keeping t [...]eir [Page 98] stated Meetings, to wait upon God in the Use of publick Ordinances, in which both Minister and People are to act their respective Parts with Constancy, Diligence and Perseve­rance? Did not the Apostles and Evangelists, by divine Au­thority, fix a mutual and particular Relation between particular Pastors and particular People, when they ordained Elders in every City? Tit. i. 5. And hath not God's Church, in all Ages since, thought this a sufficient Warrant, to act by the Pattern then given, both as to forming particular Congrega­tions, and in giving the Oversight of them to particular Pastors in the Lord? And is it not the peculiar Privilege of the Mem­bers of a particular Church, as such, to have a Vote in chusing and calling a particular Minister, to take the Oversight of them, in the Lord, as a distinct Body or Society, into which none is to be admitted but upon Trial, Approbation and Consent, and out of which none is to depart orderly, but upon weighty Rea­sons offered, which in their very Nature demand Consent? And hath not the Minister thus chosen, as the Charge of the Work and Flock devolved upon him, so also the Rule and Au­thority over his Flock, to command their Attendance upon his orderly and timous Administrations? For as the Minister at his Ordination, declares his Resolution to act his Part with Faith­fulness, do not the People also, with up-lifted Hand, vow and declare their Willingness to receive and acknowledge him, as a Minister of Christ, and to obey and submit unto him, and to wait upon his sacred Administrations, as having the Rule over them in the Lord, as well as to maintain, encourage and assist him in all the Parts of his Office? Now when this is done in the most solemn Manner, with Fasting and Prayer, by what Authority or Rule may a Person break or dissolve that Relation, by acting as if he stood not in such Relation, as soon as any bold Intruder shall come to make a Party, by entering into other Men's Labours? How can a Shepherd feed his Flock, if they are not obliged to keep under his Care? How can he lead them to Pasture, if they are not bound to keep under his Pastoral Rod? What signifies the Steward's dividing every Man his Portion, and studying to do it with Faithfulness and Impartiality, if the Houshold come not to receive it? What signifies chusing of Guides, if Men are not bound to follow them? What signifies chusing Watchmen, if Men keep not within hearing of their Warning, nor take Warning when our proper Watchmen give [Page 99] it? What signify spiritual Fathers to bring up spiritual Children, and Nurses to provide them Food, if they steal away from the one and the other, to play the Truants? How can our own Ambassadors par [...]ey with us, to carry on the Treaty of Peace between us and God, if we do not attend upon their Ambas­sage? What signifies studying of Sermons to suit the Case of the Flock, if they be not bound to attend the publick Meetings? Yea, how shall publick Worship be established, and kept up statedly, any where, if the Members of particular Congregations are at Liberty not to attend, at their own Humours? Doth not such a Principle encourage People to Humorousness, Wanton­ness, Anarchy and Confusion, so that whenever they take any Disgust upon any Occasion, be it never so unjust and unreasona­ble, they may go and come at Pleasure, as if they were under no Bond at all? Would not establishing such Rules as Mr. T. lays down here, with Respect to People's leaving their own Mi­nisters, be Pharisaical with a Witness? For would not they as effectually make void God's Institution of particular Congrega­tions and Ministry, to all Intents and Purposes, as ever the Pha­risees made God's Commands of none Effect, by their Tradi­tions?

If we mistake not, Mr. T's Arguings here are built upon some obsolete or new coined Maxims, which have not been cur­rent among Protestants in these last Ages, whether because of their Orthodoxy or Declinings, we will leave that to the Rea­der's Judgment, after we have given our Opinion in the Mat­ter? For tho' we are not so vain, as to pretend Infallibility in making Guesses, yet we see no Reason, why we may not be supposed to be as capable of forming nearer Guesses of the To­picks of a Man's Arguments in his Writings, than the spiritual Man can of the secret States of Men's Souls by their verbal Declarations: If therefore we guess right, we are of the Mind, that Mr. T's Arguments are fetched from or founded on the following Topicks, or at least, that the following Propositions are the Native Consequences of his Doctrine here, viz.

1. That People have a Right to their stated Minister's La­bours; but yet, that he hath no Right or Authority, to com­mand their Attendance upon his sacred publick Administrations, any further than their Humours are pleased or their Inclinations lead them: So that tho' in all other Relations the Possession is mutual, as 1 Cor. vii. 4. but yet in the Relation between Pas­tor [Page 100] and People, it is wholly of the People's Side: So that it is good English for People to tell their Minister, All that is yours is ours, but we are wholly our own for all that. How else can we force that Text in 1 Cor. iii. 22. to prove, that God's Peo­ple have a Right to the Gifts of all God's Ministers alike, and that therefore they are at their own Liberty to leave their own Ministers, and to make use of the Gifts of another at their own Pleasure, without wronging any? But can Mr. T. think, that Gods Intent in that Text is, to tell every particular Con­gregation, or any Sect of People, that all the Particulars con­tained in that Text were theirs equally, as to their Use, upon their clearing to themselves and Party their Title to Christ? For would not they be unholy Saints, that would claim and use such a Right? And would not others have a very unhappy World to live in, if ever such unruly Creatures should become the most numerous Party? Witness Munster. Is it not remark­able, that the ra [...]ting Anabaptists in Germany, founded the Community of Goods and Wives upon the same mistaken Gloss upon that Text, which Mr. T. founds the Community of Mi­nisters upon? And will he tell us, what are his Arguings bet­ter than theirs? For if this Text may serve to dissolve one sa­cred Relation, why not all Relations? And why may not Things present, and Things to come, and the World, include the Com­munity of All? And what miserable Work may ensue, if such a Conceit, as that Life and Death is theirs, in the same exten­sive mistaken Sense? It cost us some Thoughts what could be the Meaning of the Pope's Liberality (who is otherwise Niggard enough) in bestowing the Title of Catholicks upon his meanest Followers, until we read upon his Mitre the Name of Catholick or Universal Bishop; Is not he hereby entitled to all the Cream that drops from the Name, when the poor People have no more than an empty Title; which entitles them to no more than the heavy Burden of feeding and maintaining Swarms of greedy Locusts with the Sweat of their Brows and their Hearts Blood? How vain then is it for Protestants, to cheat themselves with the Noise of the Name of Catholicks? For may not Ca­tholick Ministers, if we make such, claim to be spiritual Men two Ways viz. By Office and Grace; whereas the People have but a single Claim, and so, instead of the Tenth, claim all to be theirs? And if Men will make an Engine of false Glosses upon Scripture Texts, to rob Ministers of their just Authority [Page 101] over their People, may not we soon see the Time, when such Glosses will be made use of, for Ropes to hang the religious Rights of the People? For are not both founded on the same Bottom? And if we do not maintain both, how soon shall we lose both? Is not this Catholick Mode the ready Way for Men to increase the Number of Teachers to an unsupportable Burden, when in reality they are destitute of a Pastor to take Care of the Flock? Is not grasping at all, the Way to lose the little one hath? Can any think, that those Congregations are better supplied, whose Ministers are whole Months abroad, than those whose Ministers tarry with them? To have a Right to the Gifts of all Ministers are big Words; but if at the same Time others have as good a Right as we to our own Minister's La­bours, so that he must act accordingly, will this big Right make us fat? And if on the other Hand Mr. T. once allows, that a Minister hath Authority to command his People's Attendance upon his publick Administrations, will not his Arguments on this Head prove meer Cobweb?

2. Another Maxim, which seems to be at the Bottom of Mr. T.'s Arguings here is, That a Minister is bound to his People, but that the People are as free from their Minister after a Call, Choice, and contracting the Relation of Pastor and Flock, as before. How else can there be room for Men's coveting the best Gifts and proving all Things after the Match is made? Is it not enough that Men have Liberty to dandle and kiss other Women when they are single; but when married, should not they delight themselves always in their own Fountain or Cistern? For how can Men hope that God will deliver them from Evil, if they lead themselves into Temptation, by embracing the Bosom of a Stranger? And what but this can we make of the Out cry made here against binding Men to particular Ministers against their Judgment and Inclinations, when they are better edified else-where, calling it carnal with a Witness, a cruel Oppression of tender Consciences, compelling Men to sin; for he that doubts is damned if he eats? What is the meaning of this Out-cry? Is it not very like the Out-cry A. B. Whitgift once made about their woful and distressed State, when the Parliament was like to pass a Bill against Pluralities? But what is this cruel Yoke that Men are in Danger of now? Is it any more than this, let every Man have his own Wife, and every Woman her own Husband, and let every Flock that have got an orderly Pastor attend for ordinary [Page 102] upon his Administrations, obey him in the Lord, and esteem him highly for his Work's Sake? And what if it was added to this, Let every Minister for ordinary reside with his own Flock, would any Man deserve the Character of an Opposer of God's Work for saying so? Will Mr. T. tell us, where among the Non-Conformists have Men been bound to a Minister against their Judgment and Inclination? Hath ever a Minister been settled in any of our Congregations, but upon the Call and Choice of the People? And is it not a greater Privilege and Liberty for a People to have a pious Minister of their own Choice to attend upon, than to be vagabond Stragglers from Place to Place as Sheep without a Shepherd? And when Men have an orderly Minister, where is the Carnality of obliging them to discharge their Duties to God and to their o [...] minister, any more than that of binding Men to perform [...] of other Relations? What if Men plead tender Consci [...]es for the Community of Goods and Wives as well as of Ministers, or for deserting their own Wives, as well as Flock or Pastors, to cloak Sin and Disorder? And are not the Duties of Ministers and People as plainly required as the other? What is that unscriptural Doctrine or Practice that is imposed? Who can set Men at Liberty from relative Gospel Duties? Is there no Difference between Christian Liberty and Licentiousness, Anar­chy and Disorder? Is not the one a Liberty to preach and profess Truth, to observe Order, and to perform the Duties of their Place and Relations peaceably? What do conscientious Non-Conformists want more than this? Must Men have Liberty besides this to spread Errors, to confound Order, to disturb others in the orderly Exercises of Piety, by rambling up and down to raise Factions, Feuds and Contentions, and to carnalize, devilize, pharisize, and abuse Men, with the Nick-names of Dupes and Dunces, meerly because they do not run with them into the same Excess of Riot, as they do?

3. Another Maxim is, That the Determinations of Ministers and Sessions touching the Liberty or Dismission of particular Members, is to be founded upon and over-ruled by the Judgment and Inclination of such Members; so that all the Authority that Church Rulers in such Matters seemingly are allowed to exer­cise, is no other or more, but only to enquire what are the Judgments and Inclinations of particular Members, with respect to adhering to or leaving their own Pastor, and then to give [Page 103] them Liberty to act herein as they see fit; for how without this, can there be room to plead Men's Judgment and Inclinations as just Reasons to justify their forsaking their own Assemblies, where God's Word is purely and therefore powerfully preached, and his Ordinances administred in Purity? Have not the best Men in this imperfect State oft such corrupt Inclinations as will as naturally lead them to Sin and Disorder, as the Eagles fly to the stinking Carcass, if Men give Way to them? What if the Judgment or Inclination of the Member appears to the Minister and Session inconsistent to Gospel Rule and Order, must they thereupon give Way to Men's Neglect of Duty and committing Sins, without bearing Witness against them for both?

4. Another Maxim is, That every Member, after solemn devoting or giving up of himself to God, his Church, and it's Rulers, to walk in Church Fellowship with them, and to be ruled by them according to God's Word, is still Judge in his own Case, how long and how often he will attend upon or absent from the publick Administrations of his chosen stated Pastor, without being accountable to his Pastor or Fellow-members for his Neglect herein: For if the Member pleads Inclination or Opinion of being better edified elsewhere, is not he at Liberty according to Mr. T.'s Rule? Who then is Judge in the Case? What then is become of the Right of Societies in their Mem­bers? May not Wantonness, vain Curiosity, Love of Novelties, Disgust, Want of Love to Truth and Gospel Order, vain Admiration of glaring Errors and Disorders, when nick-named Reformation, or even the Having of Persons in Admiration, incline Men to desert their own orderly Pastor, as well as better Principles? How then is it possible for Gospel Rule to take Place, where such vain Notions prevail?

5. Another Maxim is, That secret Reasons or Surmises in a Man's own Breast, of which he can make no apparent Proof, are sufficient Grounds to dissolve the Relation between Pastor and Flock, at least to justify Men's Non-Attendance upon the Administrations of their proper Pastors: For according to Mr. T.'s Rule, if a Member is uncharitable enough to condemn his own Pastor for a carnal Man, tho' he is orthodox and regular; [...] pretends he is not edified by him, tho' his Doctrine is sound, and his Life exemplary, or is prejudiced against him, so that tho' he once conscientiously judged him a gifted Man, who appears to be so still to more judicious Persons, yet if upon a [Page 104] slender Trial he thinks another more gifted than him, or if he hath fallen out with him, tho' that may be upon the Account of his Faithfulness, so that he is not inclined to hear him, is not he at Liberty, at least if he hath the Art of Dissembling so far as to give his Minister a Judas Kiss at parting, may not he bid him Good-Night at Noon-Day? Is it not a brave Thing that Church-Members, at least dissatisfied ones, have such an Advan­tage over their respective Pastors, so that if they want to desert them upon any Difference whatsoever, is it not the easiest Thing in the World to make a plausible Pretence of one of these surmised Excuses? and then will he not be capped to all Intents and Purposes? For then hath not he got him upon the Hugg, yea, the Cornish Hugg, and down he goes? For if he is a gifted Man, what Difficulty is it for ill Humour, to call him a carnal Man, a Pharisee, and to fill the Bushel, an Ahitophel too? If he be a gracious mild Man, is it not easy to call him a well-meaning ignorant Rustick? But if he be both a gifted and gracious Man, what Difficulty is it to tell him that he preaches too profound Divi­nity, and that Men are better edified elsewhere? If he happens to demand an Account of the Person's Edification, viz. what new Lessons he hath learned, or Progress he hath made in practical Godliness more than before? may not he tell him, that this is begging the Question, he feels it, he believes it, he knows it, he asserts, and he will stand to it, and that Thousands think so as well as himself? and may not he add to all this, that it is as plain as the Sun, and that he is blind that doth not see it, yea, as blind as a Mole, as dead as a Stone, a Dupe, a Dunce, without any spi­ritual Taste or Relish? And if the Parish Minister be so obstinate as to call all this no more than bold Say-soes; is not there a Remedy for that also? for may not the Church-Member tell his Pastor, that it is his Inclination to leave him, and to go else­where? And so may not we have Use for an old rusty Rhime?

Is not this substantial Divinity? And when a Person rhymes it so pleasantly too, hath not he a Bushel full of the Spirit of Meekness? And if the Minister be not carnal with a Witness, can he offer to say one Word more? But if he does, will it not give the Member double Advantage over him, to call him a carnal unconverted Pharisee, an Oppressor of tender Consci­ences, &c. and if he says but little, but grieves at the hearing [Page 105] of such sorry Reasons, spoken with such Confidence, if all that Mr. T. says be true, will not this be a Sign of his Rottenness and Hypocrisy? Are not these great Proficients! For cannot they def [...] the Devil to speak worse of Job, than what they [...]peak of their Minister? Well, well, Men may deceive them­selves, and mock others like themselves with such Stuff; but will God be mocked also, and count this Religion? If Men conclude his Silence or their own Success, to be sure Proofs of his Approbation, may not they either in good time, or when too late, have good Reason to mourn over their woful Mistake in the Matter? Psal. l. 21.

6. In order to fortify Men's Plea of their getting more Edi­fication over the Parish Line, than within it, we think we see another Maxim half forged out, but either for Want of sodder­ing or a welding-Heat, or because of the stubborn Temper of the Metal, it seems so full of Flaws, that it wants the second Heat or Purification, before it be fit to be handled but very gingerly, which is this, viz. That the Benefit of Hearers or the Success of a Minister's Performances, depends sometimes upon the Minister's superiour Gifts, sometimes Grace carries the Day, sometimes the Judgment or Inclination of the People will do Wonders, whatever the Minister be, for aught appears; but low to reconcile these jarring Elements with themselves or Scripture, which teaches, that the Efficacy of divine Ordinances depends upon God's Blessing and Co-operation, must be left to further Enquiry.

7. That private Members may know when their Ministers are Graceless, albeit they cannot prove any Charges against their Doctrine or Deportment; for if they can do the latter, why are Men so much in Love with graceless Men, when they exclaim so loudly against them, as not to prosecute them? Can it be for Want of Good-Will? Or if they are willing, how are Men so unskilful as to pitch upon secret Surmises, which they cannot prove true, when at the same Time it is in their Power to produce apparent Proofs, which would deserve Hearing? For does not the using of the former Shifts, prove the Dearth of the latter?

8. Another Maxim is, That a dissatisfied Member, that hath taken some Disgust at, or is at Variance with his Minister, right or wrong, is in a Capacity to make a truer Judgment of the Gifts and Graces of his Minister, as well as of his own [Page 106] Edification by his Ministry, than he himself could make when he respected him, or than the whole Congregation and Presby­tery could make at his Ordination, at least, than what his pre­sent Well-wishers do make of these Matters. How else can such secret Surmises be pleaded to be just Causes of Separation from him?

9. Another Maxim is, That all the Conceits Men entertain, and all the vain boasting Men make of their Benefit and Edifica­tion out of the Parish-line, are not only all true, but also such evident Truths, as should sway Ministers and Sessions to give up their Right in such Members. How else can this be pleaded to be a sufficient Ground to desert the Administrations of one's proper Pastor, for all in general that make it? For is it not easy to prove by apparent Fruits, that many pretend to much Benefit, who are sensibly hurt, in the Judgment of others more judicious in such Matters? And is it not well known, that the Account that some of them give of the Matter is very lame?

10. Another Maxim is, That deserting, censuring and abu­sing their own orderly Pastors, and falling in with their Side, according to Mr. T's Rule, is a sure Sign of Grace and Conver­sion; but adhering to their own Ministers, is a true Sign of carnal Men. How else are the uneasy and dissatisfied, through­out this Sermon, proclaimed pious, godly Souls, and the Adherents to their own Pastors are nick-named Dupes and Dunces, &c. with­out any spiritual Taste or Relish? We grant, that such private Members as make groundless Exclamations against their own Ministers, upon meer Surmises, are fit Followers to such Preachers as do the like; but yet, we would ask, whether those that admire glaring Errors and Disorders or those that oppose them, are the greatest Dupes and Dunces, or give the best Proofs of their Grace?

11. There seems to be another Maxim designed out of all, which, if it could be proved, would be worth all the Rest, viz. To make People believe, that Mr. T. and his Party are the only spiritual Men and gracious Ministers, and all his Opposers Hy­pocrites; the only wise Men, and others but ignorant Rusticks; at least the only edifying Preachers, and all the rest being but lame Men, and unfit for the Work; for if they have Grace, they want Gifts, or if they have Gifts, they want Grace, or if they have a little of both, they preach against the Errors and Disorders of the Times, and therefore their Sermon are unedifying [Page 107] to such as are projecting how to build a Babel. Now, as this last seems to be the Design of the whole Performance, may it not be worth our while to consider, what are the Proofs offered to support it? This will appear then,

1. If we consider the professed Scope of the whole Sermon, viz. To exclaim against carnal, unconverted Ministers, judging them severely, and, according to Mr. T. Rule, Hypocrites are against all judging of others, in order to hide their own Filthiness; and therefore to be sure publick Exclaimers against Hypocrites are all honest Men, for is not this built on another sure Maxim, viz. A Whore was never heard to call her Companion a Whore in the wide World, lest she should retort and call her a filthy Strumpet?

2. Another Proof is, The Crowds follow them, and doth not Mr. T. give us Scripture Proof for this, where-ever the Carcase is, there Eagles will be gathered, and may not we add another as much to the Purpose every whit, Rev. xiii. 3. and all the World wondered after the Beast? But before we can apply Mr. T's Text to the Matter in Hand, must not we have some Rule, such as, As the Wheel-barrow rumbles over the Pebbles, so a Thumb-Rope of Sand will make an excellent Cable for the Fishers Folly: If it were not a distinct Application here might be thought too homely, Is it not easy for a carnal Man to be distinct? We shall then only ask, who are the Eagles; what is the present Carcase; and what draws the Eagles to the Carcass? If Mr. T. will be accounted a spiritual Man, accor­ding to his own Rule, must not he be distinct in applying his own Comparisons? Who was he that assigned Universality for a Mark of the true Church? But if ever we saw the Picture of the Horse in the Mill, may not we see it here? The Ministers are good Men, because the Crowds follow them; and the Crowds that follow them are Converts, because they are graci­ous Ministers, and the Multitude's Attachment to them proves it?

3. Another Proof is, Because others do not put Men into such deep Convictions and under such deep Horror, as makes them cry, roar, faint and roll on the Ground, or so as to run into Halters; or as to cast them into Fits and Convulsions, as some do. What would a carnal Man be judged worthy of some Months ago, if he should say as much as Mr. W. does of these bodily Convulsions, viz. That he believes they come from [Page 108] the Devil, Journal, vol. 3. p. 63? We own that we do not find, that these were plenty among Protestants, by any Account we can get, but in the first breaking out of Quakerism; but if some Travellers are to be credited, are not they much more plenty in the Popish Dominions? For, when the Priests kindle the Flames of Purgatory into a terrible Bonfire, when the Pope's Bulls make an hideous roaring, when the Noise of the Wheels of the Inquisition Coach rattle, how can the poor People, that are kept in such profound Ignorance, poisoned with Superstition, and broken-hearted with slavish Fear, bear such Thunder-Claps, without being put into a Consternation? But then the Query is, whether such Shocks are the Fruit of Guilt or of Grace, of Ignorance or of Knowledge, of Faith or Unbelief, of Hope or Despair?

Before we come to make closer Remarks upon particular Arguments here, it may be, it will not be amiss to transcribe a Paragraph out of Mr. Burrough's Irenicum, pag. 84.85. "The sixth dividing Principle, saith he, is, What is best in itself must be chosen and done, not weighing Circumstances or References.—

It is, saith he, in itself a better Thing to enjoy a Ministry of the most eminent Gift and Graces, than one of lower, but if this should be made a Rule, that a Man who is under a Pastor, who is faithful and in some good Measure gifted, upon another Man's coming into the Country, that is more eminent, he should forsake his Pastor and join to the other; and if after this still a more eminent Man comes, he should leave the former and join to him; and by the same Law, a Pastor, who hath a good People, yet if others be more likely to receive more Good, he may leave his own People, and go to them; what Confusion and Disorder would there be continually in the Church? Men must consider not only what the Thing is in it's own Nature, but what it is to them, how it stands in Reference to their Relations. If you be joined to a Pastor, so as you believe he is set over you by Christ, to be a Pastor to you, though this Man hath meaner Gifts than others, and it would he more comfortable for you to have another Pastor; yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you; and if People may not leave their Pastors, because others have more eminent Gifts, then surely Pastors must not leave their People, because others have more eminent Livings.

Mr. T. here points out three or four Causes, which he asserts to be sufficient Grounds to justify Men in deserting their own [Page 109] Minister's Administrations, and to go for ordinary to hear another, viz.

1. Mr. T. seems to assert, That People's Notion of their own Minister's having lesser Gifts than a Stranger, will justify the Deserting of the former, and going to the latter frequently. pag. 19.20.

Qu. I. Is not such an idolizing Preference of Men upon the Account of superior Gifts, a Reflection upon the Wisdom of the Author of all Gifts, for his using Variety in the Distribution of Gifts, who gives to one five, to another two, to another one Talent? Must he that hath one Talent be left idle, if he lives nigh one that hath two, and he that hath two be left idle if he lives nigh one that hath five Talents? If so, what could he do that had but one Talent, but hide it in a Napkin, if he lived among such People as Mr. T. would have all to be? How could he make Use of it? And would not such a Method excuse him that had two in doing in the same manner? Besides, when a whole Congregation and the Presbytery, after solemn calling upon God, and upon fair Trial, may be supposed to be liable to mistake, who no doubt judge a Man to have at least a Compe­tency of Gifts, when they give him a Call; and it may be still on good Grounds judge that the despised Minister hath five Talents, and the admired Stranger but two or one; why may not the Dissatisfied under Disgust take the one or two for the five Talents? Is not there more Safety in the Multitude of Counsellors now as well as in Solomon's Time? Further, how without equal Trial of both Ministers, can any Man form an adequate Judgment of Men's Gifts? Is it not common for Men to admire a Stranger for once or twice wonderfully, whom after a While they think less of than their own Ministers? And may not Men of good Judgment easily mistake a Person's Gifts or real Worth upon a transient Trial? For is it not known, that one may excel in Judgment, the other in Delivery; the one hath better Matter, the other more flourishing Language; the one in Solidity, the other in making a fair Appearance; the one is more zealous, the other is more stedfast; every one having his peculiar Gifts; and is it not well known, that empty Barrels and shallow Waters make always the loudest Sound?

Qu. II. Besides, if Men could form a right Judgment in the Matter, by giving him that hath the five Talents the Preference; [Page 110] yet would not such a Practice upon such Grounds be idolizing of Instruments, by suspending the Success or Benefit of Sermons upon the Gifts of the Preacher, and not on the Blessing of God, and the Co-operation of his Spirit? May not he that hath less or no Grace excel in Gifts? and must a gifted Hy­pocrite be a fitter Instrument for God to work by, than a pious Minister of less Gifts, and therefore encouraged when the other is deserted? Hath not God often owned a Man of lesser Gifts, that is pious, to make him more successful than others more gifted? And is not this a very usual Thing, if not God's most common Way, that he may learn us to cease from Man, and that no Flesh should glory before Him, but that He alone might be exalted? Besides, tho' we allow, that when a Congre­gation is vacant, that it is their Duty and Interest to endeavour by all means, to get a Pastor of the best Gifts they can; but yet is it not one Thing to be wise and wary in chusing a Mini­ster and contracting a Pastoral Relation, but another Thing to break and cut the Bond of that Relation, after it is voluntarily entered into and contracted? May not there be room for many Considerations to take Place, to sway the Choice in making a Match, which would appear both ridiculous and sinful when pleaded to be just Causes of Divorce, after the Marriage-Knot is tied? But yet doth not Mr. T. justify this Latitude or Licence by putting the married and unmarried upon a Par, as to a second Choice, from p. 18 — 22, even supposing a Person's Pastor be gracious? We grant, his Reasonings may hold in making a Choice before such a Relation be contracted; but how can it afterwards, when the Choice is made and the Match is concluded, not for a Day or during Pleasure only, but as long as by God's good Providence the said Relation continues, or until it be dissolved in an orderly Way? And does not this appear to be Mr. T.'s Mind, if we consider the Topicks he argues from, viz. The Birds of the Air, the Fishes of the Sea, and the wild Beasts of the Field? If there comes out an Act against Metaphors, should not there be a Clause in it, viz. That a Rhetorician should never use an Argument, for fear he may come too near to the Heels of Truth? For might not the tame Ass that knoweth his Owner, and the Ox that waiteth at his Masier's Crib, learn Mr. T. a better Lesson to the Purpose in Hard, than wild Fowls Fishes or Beasts, who have no certain Owner, Place or Crib Pastor or Ruler, Law or Rule of Government, nor capable of [Page 111] having any, but are lest to wander as their natural Instinct leads them? And yet do not these observe some Order in keeping to their own Flock, and some of them to their own Mates, not­withstanding their Wanderings and Want of Reason? Where then is the Similitude between such Creatures and Church-Members, who are rational Creatures, under a Law, proper Pastor, divided into stated Companies, and under Vows and solemn Ties to continue in Church Fellowship, and under the Pastoral Rod and Care of a fixed Pastor, who is invested with the Authority of a Steward, both to feed and to rule his parti­cular Flock, as a distinct Body or Houshold? And are not all the orderly Relations of rational Creatures, whether natural, civil or religious, fixed and stated by particular Bounds and Limits, within which Men should keep at least for ordinary? And what is good Order in Church or State, but the due Obser­vation of our proper Limits, by performing the Duties of our Relations in proper Place and Time, without Neglect, as well as without Encroachment or disturbing of others in their proper Places and Relations? Will Mr. T. tell us, what is that ordinary Calling or Relation in Church or State of God's Appointment, whereby Men are called to become Wanderers or Vagabonds, as the Fowls of the Air, Fishes, or wild Beasts? Doth not the Christian Religion in its very Nature, according to the stated Dispensation we are now under, exclude and forbid such Wan­derings any further than Necessity or Conveniency requires them? And are not all Wandrings out of meer Choice, our Wanton­ness and Sin? As therefore Mr. T. well observes, that a Work may be a Duty in the Matter of it, when it is a Sin in the Manner, if not performed according to the Rule; we would ask, whether or no the Duty of Preaching may not be abused this Way, as much as any other Duty, by Men deserting their own Flocks, and intruding in a disorderly Manner into the Labours of other pious Ministers, to withdraw their Flocks from them? And as great Dupes and Dunces as Mr. T. counts is, we challenge him, or any of his Party to reconcile such Practices to Scripture-Rule, the Presbyterian-Plan, or even to right Reason and Charity? But to return to the Matter in Hand; who doubts, but that in chusing Pastors as well as Wives, Men should seek the best Gifts; but yet must we be chusing every Day for ever, without any Regard to the Choice already made, and the Relation already contracted? Is it not [Page 112] our Duty, when bound to a Minister, as well as to a Wife, to stand to the Choice made, and to fulfil the respective Duties of that Relation? May not those Gifts be best and fittest for me, which God in his Providence carves out for me, tho' they be not best in themselves, or in my Esteem and Conceit; and when Men stand related upon a solemn Choice, should not all that are bound to an orderly Minister in an orderly Way, believe this, notwithstanding corrupt Reason or Inclination suggest the contrary? For when Ministers are but Instruments, what hath a more direct Tendency to answer or reach the designed End, than a careful and close Observation of God's Institutions in using Means and Instruments, without consulting with Flesh and Blood? That there is a Difference or variety of Gifts, and that Men should be duly respected upon the Account of superior Gifts, we own, but will it follow thence, that we are to contemn our own Minister, if he hath a Competency of Gifts, by with­drawing our Attendance upon his Ministry, any more than that a Man should despise his own virtuous Wife, because some fine Lady in the Town is more beautiful than she? For is it not well known, that plain Preaching may be more edifying to the Vulgar than profound Doctrine, which may be more edifying to Men of greater Capacities? For is not a wooden Key that opens the Lock, better than a golden one that makes a fidling Din in the Wards, and yet confounds them? Is not sound Scripture Doctrine the true Food of Souls, and what is truly edifying? And is not Truth, in her sober homely Garb, more edifying than gaudy Error, spruced up with all the Fineries of the Scene or Stage, or bug-beared with all the Horns that can stick upon its hydratick Heads? And if Mr. T's Sermons be stripped of the Padlock of Pen and Inkhorn Terms, what Sermons are there preached among us, but what will more than equalize this Sermon of his, as well as Mr. W's Sermons, for old Truth? And doth not sound Matter edify better than ear-pleasing empty Sounds? But how great soever Men's Gifts be, must not God carry on a Series of Miracles as long as there is a Series of true Conversion Work carried on in the World: why then should Mr. T. count this unnecessary, or the supposing this unreasonable? How alien to the Matter in Hand is the Exam­ple of John the Baptist's Hearers, and those of the Pharisees, coming to hear Christ, not only upon Week-Days, but upon Sabbath-Days, whom Christ reproved not? For may not a mean Capacity [Page 113] distinguish between the Master and the Servant, and between ordinary and extraordinary Times or Matters? For where was that Parish Church among the Pharisees, wherein the same Gospel Doctrine which Christ preached, was preached in Purity? In what Part of the World was John the Baptist's Parish? When hath Mr. T. or his Adherents, given as good Proofs of their being as much greater than their Brethren as Christ did to John? Might not John worship Christ without being guilty of Idolatry, as well as give him the Preference? But what sort of Creatures are those who put themselves upon a Par with Christ in extraor­dinary Matters? And is not Christ's particular Respect to John, and his taking him, with Peter and James, to Mount Tabor and Gethsamene, as little to the Purpose? For who was that stated Pastor, unto whom these Disciples were related, whose sacred Administrations were deserted, by their accompanying Christ?

2. Another Thing that is pleaded to be sufficient Grounds to justify People to forsake their own Minister, and to go to hear others for ordinary, is, the Judgment and Inclination of People ballancing that Way.

Before we come to lay down Queries, we shall premise a few Words: As to the Noise here made about binding Men against their Judgment and Inclination, to a particular Minister; if levelled against our Synod, it is entirely a false Charge, as we hinted already; for none are bound with us but by their own free and voluntary Choice and Consent; all the Binding that can be pretended to be, is that we plead, that it is the Duty of the Members of a particular Congregation, who have a fixed Pastor, to attend for ordinary upon his Ministry, while he is their orderly Minister.

Qu. I. When it is Christ's Appointment, that every Congre­gation should have their own Pastor, and every Pastor his own Flock; how can Mr. T. have the Face to out-face the Truth so far, as to say, that obliging Church-Members to wait upon the Gospel Administrations of their own Pastor, is an unscriptural Infringement on Christian Liberty, unless he can prove that the Relation of Pastor and People is an human Invention? Can Mr. T. say, that this is any more than Christ's easy Yoke? How terribly then doth Mr. T. misrepresent the Matter, when he saith, that it is a worse Yoke than that of Rome itself? to prove which he quotes Dr. Voetius, who asserts, That even among Papists, as to hearing of Sermons, the People are not deprived of [Page 114] the Liberty of Choice. If the Account be true, whether or no one orthodox Protestant Minister, be not worth a Thousand popish begging Friars with all their Trumpery? Suppose then, that the Pope allows the People a free Election or Choice of their own Pastors, if this were true, are not Protestant Dissenters fully as orthodox as he is in this Point? For hath not he Missio­naries, but none of our Ministers will cope with him, except Mr. T. will? For what else can we call Mr. F. who resides with us this Winter? If the Pope allows People to chuse a Pastor to-day, and to reject him to morrow, upon the bare Plea of their own Judgment and Inclination, is it any Wonder that Protestants dissent from Papists in this Point, when they differ in as material Ones besides? For is it not the Pope's old Rule to People, Come you over to me in Ceremonials, and I will come over to you in Morals? And without we would go all the Way to the Delphic Oracle, we cannot expect a Scheme that will suit the Inclinations of the Generality better than his: Well, but will not we have as good Company, if we have the Vogue of all sound Protestant Reformers on our Side, albeit Mr. T. should be so happy as to have the Pope on his? What sort of an Aspect is it when some of the Stars of the first Magnitude in this lower Orb, are in something like a Conjunction with the Dragon's Tail, in the Points they dissent from their Brethren? Hath not Rome been much abused, and Protestant Writers much mistaken, if the News be true that the Protestant Yoke, even among Conformists, is worse than the Romish Yoke? And may not Non-conformists speak one Word more than they — in the Matter? All that we can say is, that we cannot wish any of our Fellow-Subjects as great an Evil, as to have the Trial of both; for was not it an unhappy Day when King Lucius bartered a Crown of Gold for a Crown of Thorns, by laying down his Scepter at the Feet of him that bore a Reed? But more Fury still; for Mr. T. adds, It is a Yoke like that of Aegypt, which cruel Pharoah formed for the Necks of the oppressed Israelites, when he obliged them to make up their stated Task of Brick, but allowed them no Straw; so we must now grow in Grace and Knowledge, but in the mean Time, according to the Notion of some, we are confined from using the likeliest Means to attain the End. Is not this an hard Case? But the Query is, whether the People's Task, or Mr. T.'s Task is the greatest, who was obliged to travel all the Way to Aegypt, to find an equal Yoke to the [Page 115] Gospel-Yoke, but is it not son Comfort that he must not go further? for hath not he found one like it now? We never till now heard the Question resolved whether the Pope's or Pharaoh's Yoke was the Heaviest, but it would seem that Catholicks reckon Pharaoh's Yoke much worse; Why so? Is it because they seel a Burden upon the Body more than double the Weight upon the Conscience, because the latter is tender? But when Mr. T. allows, that the same Word is preached in the Parish, that is preached out of the Parish Line; is it any Loss that People are bereaved of Straw in their spiritual Food? If this be the Case, will not Mr. Whitefield's and Wesley's Books, and this Sermon of Mr. T. supply all our Parishes with more than enough of Straw, Hay and Stubble too, so that we have no Need to go out of the Parish Line to fetch more? And when the same Word is preached by an orthodox stated Pastor without Straw, how are Men confined from the likeliest Means, to attain Growth in Grace? But what if thro' Want or Weakness of Judgment, wavering Instability, Double-mindedness, Wantonness, Pride, Love of Novelties, itching Ears, Curiosity or delusive Fancies, People are inclined not to hear sound Doctrine, being like Israel of old, loving to wander, without refraining her Feet, Jer. 14.10. and to go after her Lovers, that gave her her Bread and her Water, her Wool and her Flax, her Oil and her Drink, Hos. 2.5. yea, to scatter her Ways unto Strangers under every green Tree, Jer. 3.13. Will it be the Part of the good Shepherd to suffer the Sheep to go astray, as oft and as long and as far as such an Inclination leads them, or hath not God entrusted his Servants with a Rod to revenge all Disobedience? 1 Cor. 4.21. 2 Cor. 10.6. Are not Sheep to follow their own Shepherds in what they follow Christ, and to obey their own Rulers in the Lord, striving in the Strength of his Grace, to bring every Judgment, Thought and Inclination into Captivity, to the Obedience of Christ, praying that he may incline their Hearts to perform his Statutes always even unto the End, as knowing it to be both the Sin and the Punishment of the Back-slider to be filled with his own Ways? To conclude this, we would ask, Whether bringing Religion to truckle to the Humours of the People, be not the ready Way to destroy Religion and the People? As for Instance, Cambyses demanding of his Counsellors, Whether he might marry his Sister by the Law of the Land? They an­swered, That they found no Law, that allowed a Brother to [Page 116] marry a Sister; but one, that allowed the Kings of the Persians to do as they list. What a poor Government would it have been, if all the Persians had such an Allowance?

3. Another Thing, which is supposed to afford Grounds for a Church Member to withdraw from his own proper Pastor, is the Conceit or Hope Men may conceive of getting as good if not better Edification elsewhere. Here we are like to have some warm Work, if not a Battle. Page 21. Mr. T. saith, If the great Ends of Hearing may be attained as well, and better, by Hearing of another Minister than our own; then I see not, why we should be under a fatal Necessity of hearing him, I mean our Parish-Minister, perpetually, or generally. Is not this Argument as long as it is broad? For may not we say, If the great Ends of Hearing may be attained as well, if not better, by hearing our own Minister than another; then we see not, where is the Prudence, Piety, or Order, in forsaking our own Pastor to go to hear another? Whether the commanded Duty, or the Neglect or Counter-acting of it, is fatal? Is the sacred Relation between Minister and People such an Atom, that Mr. T. cannot see it without a Microscope? Is Men's solemn Choice, and the wise Disposal of Providence, in bringing Men into such a particular Relation to their Minister, a Nullity? Are Men's solemn Vows of attending upon their own Minister's Administrations, No­thing? Is Christ's Institution, which is the Foundation of par­ticular Churches, and of the particular Relation between Pastor and People, a meer Trifle? May not a purblind Man see, that this is some Reason, why Men should ordinarily attend upon the Administrations of their stated Pastor? Is it not some Af­front to say, in the open Parlour, that Doll is as good as my Lady; but must she be better too? How then will Mr. T. prove, that stolen Bread is sweeter than common, and that Men will thrive better by it? Mr. T. adds, What are, or ought to be the Ends of Hearing, but getting of Grace, and growing in it? Rom. 10.14. 1 Pet. 2.2. Ans. Yea, and why may not glorifying God by our Obedience, as well as getting Communion with God, be as direct Ends as the former? Hath not Mr. T. lately con­tended warmly with Mr. Gowell for asserting, that our own Good or Happiness is our main End? What is the Reason that he now seems to change Sides, as if he had forgot his own Part of that Controversy? Was Mr. T. aware, that it was an hard Matter to prove, that we glorify God by forsaking our own [Page 117] Assemblies? But will he tell us, whether he hath any of the Oil of Grace to sell to or to bestow upon his Hearers, any more than the Parish Minister? If not, what is this to the Purpose? But Mr. T. adds, Poor Babes like not dry Breasts, and living Men like not dead Pools. But are not the Breasts, if not of the Fathers, yet of the Mothers that begat them, as natural for Babes, as those of a Stranger? Can Mr. T. tell us in what Parish one may meet with more, or half as much of the Coloquintida of false Doctrine, than in Mr. W—d's Books and this Sermon of his? When he doth this, may it not be time for such Parishioners to cry out with the Sons of the Prophets, Death is in the Pot? Mr. T. adds, Well then, may not these Ends be obtained out of our Parish Line? So say we, may not these Ends be obtained within our Parish Line? Mr. T. proceeds, saying, Faith comes by hearing, Rom. 10. But the Apostle doesn't add your Parish Minister. So say we, the Apostle does not add an Itinerant, nor a begging Friar, nor a wandring Jew. What then? Is not the Parish Minister in Possession, and if another enters into his Labours, should not he shew his Patent or Call? Mr. T. adds, Is not the same Word preached out of the Parish? So say we, Is not the same Word preached in the Parish, and that to some better Purpose? Else, how could we correct Mr. T's and W's Divinity, who are but common Hearers, even tho' it were supposed, that we had some Help from the Parish Minister? Besides, is not there some Odds between an orderly Pastor and a vagabond Intruder, to dispence Ordinances, if we have any Regard at all to our Bibles? Mr. T. adds, Is there any Restriction in the Promises of Blessing the Word to those only, who keep within the Parish-Line ordinarily? We reply, Is there any Restriction of the Promises of Blessing the Word to those only, who ordinarily go over the Parish-Line to hear? If there is, is not the Condition of the Sheep much better when they want, than when they have a Pastor, if they have but a neigh­bouring Minister? To what Purpose then shall Mr. T.'s Parish keep him any longer? Mr. T. adds, If there be such a Restric­tion, I have not yet met with it. Say you so; but can Mr. T. say, that he hath met with such a Restriction on the other Side? But will Mr. T. tell us where did he look for it, was it in the Promise only? If so, might not the Restriction be in the Precept added to the Promises? For is not the Blessing and Promise God's Part, and what Need was there that God should [Page 118] put Restrictions on himself? For might not he put Restrictions enough upon us, in Point of Duty, without putting the least Restraint upon himself, in Point of Grace? Are our Choice of, our Vows and Relation to our own Pastor, our Obligation to the relative Duties of this Relation, and Christ's Institution of particular Churches, under the Care, Watch and Oversight of particular Pastors, no Restriction upon the Pastor's proper Flock, at least ordinarily, to attend upon his sacred Administrations? Here must not Mr. T. either own this to be God's Way, or say it is not? If he says it is not, how did he come under such a Relation to his own Flock, and bring them under the Ties of such a Relation to him? And if he had any Light since, to the contrary, how doth he continue in such a Relation still, as well as join in fixing others in the same? If he owns this to be God's Way, is not the Promise of Blessing to those that keep God's Way in waiting upon him? Psal. xxxvii. 34. Besides, doth not Mr. T. plainly assert, with Respect to the promised Bles­sing to encourage us to Duty, that we have no more that a Per­adventure or Probability of obtaining it? If so, how clear must the Matter be, that the Promises of Blessing cannot be our Rule? For is not our Rule of Duty sure and certain, if we do but hearken to it, without any Peradventure at all, so that, he that runs may read; yea, so plain, that way-faring Men, tho' Fools, shall not err therein? Isai. 34.8. Must it not follow then, that how far soever the Promise is a Rule to us to direct our Course by it, so far it must needs be sure and certain, not only in it self, but also to us? How else can we observe it? Will Mr. T. therefore encourage People to desert their proper Pastors upon something less than a Probability of benefiting elsewhere? For if we have but a Probability in the Way of Duty, must not we have less than that itself when we go out of it? But Mr. T. adds, Yea, I can affirm, that so far as Knowledge can be had in such Cases, I have known Persons get saving Good to their Souls, by their hearing over the Parish Line; and this makes me earnest in the Defence of it. Might not we easily affirm as much on the other Side, and have Numbers to join with us? But what signify Mr. T.'s Affirmations or our Affirmations in religious Matters, when God's Word is the sole Rule? Should not then Messrs. You say and I say, and Messrs. Experience and Feelings, instead of being pragmatical, in Silence hearken what saith the Lord, whose Word alone is authoritative and decisive in the Point? If [Page 119] therefore Mr. T. stands up in the Defence of the Practice of Crossing the Parish Line, upon the sandy Bottom of his own or others Affirmations and Experiences; have not we much more Reason to be earnest in the Defence of Men's continuing in Church-Fellowship, without forsaking their own Assemblies disorderly, upon the Foundation of God's Institution? Heb. x. 25. For is it not vain and frivolous to the last Degree, in those that own Scripture to be their sole and perfect Rule, to plead such Experiences for a Rule, which plainly thwart Scripture-Rule? But surely Mr. T.'s Heart strangely failed him here, in that he pretends not to affirm the Matter positively, as to People's getting saving Good in his contested-for Way, but only with this Limitation, as far as Knowledge can be had in such Cases: Would not it look little enough in such Ministers as pretend not to know certainly, whether Christ be formed in the Hearts of their Hearers, to come off as lame as this? For how can Mr. T. take Comfort in what he knows not now? as he saith in pag. 12. How then can Mr. T. encourage People to desert their own Ministers upon such a precarious Footing, in or­der to try a Remedy called Experimental Nostrum, which Mr. T. recommends upon the bare Authority of his own Experience? For aught we know, hundreds have made Experiments of it in a Day; and yet, does not Mr. T. candidly own, that tho' he guessed it did good to many, yet he is not able to produce one uncontestable Proof of its having done real good to one Soul? Who must answer for it, if it prove a Kill-Cure? Is not Scrip­ture Rule, which is tried seven Times, stamped with the divine Seal, recommended by a Cloud of incontestable Witnesses, a far safer Rule, than any Rules framed out of the Experiences of as many Millions of fallible Men as there have Days elapsed since the Creation of Man upon Earth? Who then act more fillily or foolishly than those, who take the bold Affirmations of a single Person, upon the sandy Footing of his probable Expe­riences, for their Rule in religious Matters, when it is evident, that the Practice encouraged by such Experience, is directly opposite to what is required by divine Institutions? What poor Arguings are those, wherein there is neither proving nor hand­some begging, nor yet yielding up the Case, but silly crowing over the Argument with half begging, and then summoning Mr. Experience, who is a purblind or half-eyed Gentleman, to fill the Room of a double Evidence, to witness a bold Peradventure, [Page 120] contradictory to Scripture Rule? O rare! What a Clock now? Is not it Two and Two, if not something more? For if we get the least Justice, have not we saved our Bail fairly, as well as entered a Demur in the Case, standing fairly at the Mouth of the Demi-Cannon for all the Warmness of the Battle, Shoot­ings and Huzza's? Can Mr. T. think, but that we have some Round-Heads still, who are bold Fellows, who will stand up for Liberty and Property, according to the old Charter of Divine Institution, for all the Noise, Puffings and Vapours of the hot­spur Chevaliers, for Supremacy and Prerogative, Diotrephes like, by calling their Neighbours Dupes, Dunces, and silly Fools, &c? Further we grant, that Men should have a due Regard to their Souls Edification, and that they should not, by any means, chuse any Minister, but one that is apt to teach, having a Com­petency of Gifts, sound in the Faith, and exemplary in his Life; and if afterwards he is found any way faulty, should not they appear against him in the Way of regular Discipline, and get rid of him? If the Wife plays the Harlot, is it not better to give her a Bill of Divorce, than to keep her and pay her in her own Coin? For will not that make a Man as much a Rogue as she is a Whore: And will one Sin mend another? If People have an orthodox, regular Minister, ought not they to attend upon his sacred Administrations ordinarily, looking unto God for his Blessing upon his own Institutions, waiting in Faith and Hope of it? If the Food be wholsome, and others are edified thereby, may not Men have greater Reason to look to their own Hearts and Ways, lest the Fault be in themselves and not in their Ministers, which loudly calls for Humiliation and Amendment? For is it not evident, that the Reason of Men's not Profiting, is not always the Unsuitableness of the Minister's Gifts, nor his Want of Grace, nor the Want of his Exercise of them? For who can believe, but that Lot was earnest with his Sons-in-Law; and yet, did not he seem to them as one that mocked? Was not Christ earnest with Jerusalem; and yet, had not he Reason to complain, that Israel would not come to him, nor be gathered? What Sort of a Way of convin­cing Men of Sin is this; For is it not a plain Teaching Men to hide and palliate their Sins, like Adam, who said, the Woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the Tree, and I did eat? Will it do, that Men blame and exclaim against their Minister, when they themselves are in the Fault? For may [Page 121] not Men's not Profiting, proceed from the Hearer's Want of Grace, or the Want of the due Exercise of it, or from his Neglect of Prayer for himself and his Minister, or from their coming to hear with Prejudice and Ill-will, or from Want of due Attendance upon the Word preached or Meditation upon it afterwards, or from Want of due Love and Regard to it, as it is the Word of God and not of Man, or from Love to No­velties and wanton Curiosity, or from vain Admiration of Men's Persons and vain Fanglings, or from Want of Judgment, ma­nifested in an undue Regard unto the Dress and Manner of Delivery, more than the Matter delivered? Or may not Hear­ers, many other such like Ways, stand in the Way of their own Edification? And if it be so, that others, who are more consci­entious, reap real Benefit, by the divine Blessing, under the same Ministry; must not the Fault, in all likelihood, be their own, and not their Minister's? Besides, is it not easy for Men to en­tertain high Conceits of their reaping much Benefit, when in Reality, they lose Ground instead of gaining it, by encompassing themselves about with Sparks of their own Kindling? Isa. l. 11. Did not the Church of Lacdicea both think and say, that she was rich, and increased in Goods, and had need of Nothing? Can any of our Boasters match her, with all their Skill, if her Declaration of her Experiences be Sterling, or even Currency? If any will say no, will they tell us, why not? And then may not we with Ease tell them, why the Declarations should pass only by Weights too? Do not many think they are bravely edified, when they are pleased and flattered, when in Reality it proves a Curse unto them? Prov. xxvii. 14. Do not many think that they are edified, when they are encouraged in their Disorders, or in their vain presumptuous Hopes, by their being proclaimed Saints for their anarchical Practices? Isa. xxx. 10, 11, Or may not Men think that they are edified, when they are confirmed in their fond but false Opinions, when they are displeased at Truth? 1 Kings xxii. 6, 7, 8. And may not others be edified in Reality, who are not sensible of it for the present, because their Humours are crossed? For doth not God often cross his Hands to our Views, in giving the Success, as well as Jacob did his, in blessing the two Sons of Joseph? Was not young Hagar, in all Appearance, more likely to be fruitful than old Sarah with her dead Womb? But yet, what was got by crossing the Parish-Line, but only a big mocking [Page 122] Ishmael, who must be cast out, to the creating of Grief of Heart instead of Comfort to Abraham? And was not Abraham obliged to return within the Parish-Line, before he could get the pro­mised Seed, for all their Haste and Combination to try the most as likely in Appearance, but improper Means? Was not Rachel as likely in Appearance to be fruitful as blear-eyed Leah, and had not the former the Love of her Husband to boot? And yet was not the latter more fruitful, as well as proved the Mother of the promised Seed?

4. Another Thing, that is pleaded for a lawful Ground for People to desert their own Minister, is, Their Opinion or Guess that their proper Pastor is a natural Man: And this seems to be magnified above the rest, by his asserting, that in this Case, it is both lawful and expedient to forsake the proper Pastor. p. 22.

Qu. I. Is it not notorious, that Enthusiasts have, in all Ages, branded the Orthodox, that opposed their enthusiastick Notions, with the opprobrious Names of carnal Men, Literalists, Scribes and Pharisees, in order to amuse the Vulgar, and to incense their blind Admirers against them? Was not this the Way the Pharisees took to blacken Christ's Character, by pretending to know, that he was a Sinner, a Glutton, a Drunkard, a Deceiver, a Traitor, a Conjurer, and what not? Was not this the Way their Brood, the false Apostles, took to blacken Paul's Character, as may be seen in many Places, particularly in 2 Cor. x. 2.? But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present, with that Confidence wherewith I think to be bold against some which think of us, as if we walked according to the Flesh. ver. 3. For tho' we walk in the Flesh, we do not war after the Flesh? Was not carnal Paul better than the glorious vain-boasting false Apostles, who highly commended themselves and one another, making fair shews in the Flesh, in order to rent Congregations, and to draw the Members of them to their deluded Party? And did not such Deceits prove very bewitching to the Galatians? Gal. iii. 1. But how did they prove this Charge against Paul? Doth it not seem that one Proof was his asserting his ministerial Authority, whence he was concluded to be masterly, because he commanded People to obey their own Rulers in the Lord, and warn'd Men not to forsake their own Assemblies, and op­posed disorderly Intruders, together with their corrupt Doctrines and Practices, therefore he was carnal? What but this makes the Apostle to reply, in the 2 Cor. x. 8. But tho' I should boast [Page 123] somewhat more of my Authority (which the Lord hath given us for Edification and not for Destruction) I should not be ashamed: q. d. Will this prove me a carnal Man? But what had the false Apostles to say more, to prove that Paul was carnal? May we not see in Verse the 10th, For his Letters (say they) are weighty and powerful? Will this do him any Service? How can it, for is not the Answer ready? Unconverted Ministers are crafty Foxes, there is still Enmity in their Hearts to the Seed of the Woman, tho' it is better polished in others with Wit and Rhe­torick, and guilded over with the specious Names of Zeal, Fi­delity, Peace, good Order and Unity? page 5—9. What more to prove Paul carnal, But his bodily Presence is weak? Was not this a home Thrust? For how could he preach with Authority, who had no Brass in his Countenance to make him Fool-hardy? Well, but what more, His Speech is contemptible? What can be said more? For may not this big Word in the Indictment serve for a Category to place a whole Train of bad Epithets, viz. For if there was Room to call Paul's Preaching contemptible, might not they call it soft, selfish, cowardly, dry, sapless, freezing, dead as a Stone, yea, and prating too? And who but Dupes and Dunces would wait to hear him? But for all this, will not Truth be Truth still, and Error, Error? Will calling honest Men Knaves, prove them to be so, or the contrary? But is it not too soon yet to judge positively, who, among orderly Professors, are carnal, or who converted?

Qu. II. Do not all Mr. T's Reasonings here suppose, That a graceless Minister may be known by his Hearers, altho' both in Doctrine and Discipline he be blameless, excepting human In­firmities, which are consistent with true Grace? For if he be blemished in Doctrine or Character, should not he be prosecuted according to Merit, that so the Evil might be taken away from among them? But if he be not blemished either in Doctrine or Conversation, is it not impossible for Men to know his Grace­lessness? Yea, is it not rash judging, to pronounce him Grace­less? How then can his Gracelessness, which cannot be proved, be a sufficient Reason to forsake his Ministry? Would not such Actings be a plain casting off Scripture from being a Rule? Is it safe for Men to dissolve a sacred Relation, or to neglect its respective Duties, upon an uncertain Guess or groundless Sur­mise, which, for aught they know, may be a foul Mistake and the Fruit of meer Prejudice? Is it not bold Work to kick in [Page 124] the Dark against the Pricks? If any will say, he is confident he judges right, in judging his Minister carnal; was not Paul as confident, when in Zeal he persecuted the Church, as any such can be? Acts xxvi. 9. Besides, we would ask such a one, whe­ther or no he was not once as confident, that his Minister was a gracious Man? how else could he give him a Call? And do not many as judicious and conscientious Christians as he, judge him to be so still? Is it not a fundamental Error in Discipline, to make meer Guesses about Men's secret State towards God, the Foundation of Judgment, in passing any Church Censures upon them? And can any be deprived of a Place or Privilege in the Church, without just Grounds for a Censure? And if the Re­lation between Pastor and Flock is to be dissolved, upon every private Surmise or Guess in a Man's own Breast, is not every Member to be sole Judge in his own Cause? And so, is not the Church a Society that is wholly without any Bands? How then can our Jerusalem be said, to be builded as a City that is compact together? Psal. cxxii. 3. We appeal to all Church Members, how will they like it, if, upon such Encouragements, they break off from their present, and join with such Ministers as call themselves Spiritual Men, if afterwards they are debarred of their religious Privileges, without any Charge proven against their Principles or Practices, upon meer Guesses of their being carnal Men, as they are taught to serve their present Ministers? Will it not be full Time then, to think of some new Community again? Yea, we would ask, how would Congregations like it, if the present Ministers would forsake and leave them, for no other Reason but a blind Guess of their being carnal Men; or saying, that they judge they would be more edifying elsewhere; or upon pleading their own Inclination to remove from them, which they may easily do, upon a better Encouragement offered elsewhere, if all other Shifts fail? Can the Minister be tied faster to the Flock, than the Flock are to him? Conscience, speak! When therefore it is God's Appointment, that every Congregation should have their own Pastor, and every Pastor his own Flock? When the Relation is mutual, ought not their Love, Respect and Assistance to each other, to be mutual? And ought not they to be studious, wary and careful how to behave to each other in that Relation, in all Respects, in such a Man­ner as may be conducive to make and continue them mutual Blessings and Comforts to each other; and to watch against all [Page 125] glaring Temptations, that Satan or his Instruments, whether by transforming himself into an Angel of Light or otherwise, may cast in their Way, to alienate their Affections from each other, or to neglect their respective Duties to each other, as they are severally called to act a proper Part, in teaching and being taught, in ruling and obeying, in administring Gospel-Ordinan­ces and in waiting upon God in the Use of Ordinances admi­nistred, in Obedience to Christ, in Faith and Hope of his Blessing upon his own Institutions? For how can we in Faith expect, that those who watch over our Souls, can give an Ac­count with Joy and not with Grief, if their Flocks do not obey them in the Lord? And if we grieve them, by walking disorder­ly, by absenting ourselves from sacred Administrations, when purely and regularly administred by them, can we expect, that this will be profitable to us, when God's Word plainly tells us the contrary? Heb. xiii. 17. Will any tell us, how we may be said to esteem them highly for their Works Sake, who labour among us, and are over us in the Lord, as we are commanded in 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. if we reject their Admonitions, which are agreeable to Scripture Rule, and hearken to such Instructions which are contrary to it, and therefore cause us to err; or if we neglect their Administrations, tho' gracious Ministers, upon a meer Conceit that others are more gifted than them, when it plainly appears, upon a Review of the Writings of the admired Strangers, that they are not sound in their Doctrine, besides their anarchical Practices? Do we esteem them highly for their Works Sake, when we either reproach them ourselves, or else take up the Reproaches of others, who slander orthodox and orderly Ministers with the black Characters of carnal Men and Hypocrites, when neither they nor we can prove the Charge, nor make regular Attempts that Way? Ought we not to be very tender of their Reputations, whose Faithfulness for God will provoke Satan and his Instruments, to make their Characters the Butt of their malicious, poisonous Arrows of Reproaches and false Reports? Do we shew our high Esteem of them, by studying to be at Peace among ourselves, when we cry them down and others up, without being able to give any solid Reason for either, and by running away from them in a disorderly Way, like wandring Sheep after Straglers; or when we encourage and incense others against them, and to forsake them too, meerly because they bear a faithful Witness against the Errors and Disorders of [Page 126] the Times? Where is the high Esteem of them in Love, when we entertain a vain Conceit, that a more unsound Doctrine, preached by disorderly Straglers, will edify us better, than more sound and wholsome Doctrine, preached by our own Pastors? Where is the high Esteem of them in Love, if we not only give Way to our perverse Inclinations to lead us into Disorders and Contempt of Gospel Order, but also plead such Inclinations for sufficient Reasons to justify our forsaking their regular Ad­ministrations, and our flocking to and after others, who walk disorderly? Is it not our plain Duty to withdraw from every Brother that walketh disorderly, as we are taught in 1 Thess. iii. 6? And can that Assembly be orderly, whose Teacher is an Intruder, or observes not the Gospel Rules established in our Communities, absolutely requisite to preserve Purity, Peace and Gospel Order? And are not they disorderly, whether gra­cious or carnal?

1. Who forsake their own Charges, in order to make disorderly Intrusions into the Labours of others; was not this the Trick of the false Apostles, and does not Paul reflect upon such Practices as unbecoming and rude? 2 Cor. 10.15, 16.

2. Who make general Exclamations, and write and publish general Libels, to blacken the Characters of their Brethren by blind Pushes, contrary to all the Rules of regular Discipline, which require us to be particular in all the Steps of Discipline, and to confront the Accusers and Accused. Mat. 18.15, 16, 17.

3. Who encourage Defamations, by taking up Reproaches and private Whisperings against their Brethren, spreading them by the Flying-Post of Report, like those in Jer. 20.10. con­trary to Psa. 15.3. 1 Tim. 5.19.

4. Who intrude into the Vacancies belonging unto other Presbyteries, and into the dissatisfied Corners of Congregations where there is a stated Minister, without the Invitation, or seeking the Concurrence of the respective Presbyteries or Mini­sters, to foment Feuds, Factions and Disorders; and is not such a Practice a Lording it over their Brethren, subversive of our Constitution, to the Confounding of all Order among us? Mat. 20.25.

5. Who creep into Houses, by Preaching and Lecturing in private Houses, to lead captive silly Women, and Men that are too like Women, out of the Congregations of other Mini­sters, 2 Tim. 3.6. Is not this Practice disorderly now in a [Page 127] Time of publick Liberty, especially when it hath a Tendency to make Rents in other Congregations? And should not Non-Conformists of all others observe Gospel-Order, or else do not they give up the Cause, which to their Fore-Fathers was dearer than their Estates, Lives and Liberties.

6. Who instead of strengthening the Hands of their Brethren, do every where strive to set up Threshold against Threshold, and Altar against Altar, exclaiming against and condemning all that will not come as Voluntiers at the Beating of their Drums; witness the present Sermon; as if tarrying with David after once hearing Absalom's Drums, was Rebellion against Heaven which made David King.

7. Who defend and palliate Errors and false Doctrine, and exclaim against the Opposers of it; witness the Out-cries made against our first Queries at White-clay-Creek, and Mr. C. T. and S. F.'s Letters, and Mr. Bl—r's.

8. Who encourage others industriously to break thro' good Rules and Order; witness this Epistle and Sermon of Mr. T.

9. Who encourage People to forsake their stated orderly Ministers in a disorderly factious Way, in order to increase their Party; witness the present Sermon. Jer. 23.1.

10. Who strengthen the Hands of the Wicked, by declaring or insinuating, that all their Partizans, tho' never so disorderly, are Godly Men and Converts; and by wounding the Characters of other orderly Ministers by dark Insinuations, and uttering Surmises of their being Pharisees, carnal Men and Hypocrites, albeit they cannot prove any Charges against them: Is not this the whole Strain of this Sermon?

11. Who tho' they libel their Brethren in a general Way, yet deny them a fair Trial in their proper Judicatories, refusing to clear them, when it would seem they cannot prove any Thing to their Disadvantage; witness Mr. T. and Mr. Blair's refusing to comply with the just and reasonable Request of our Presbytery, viz. When the Presbytery desired them to declare, whether any of their Number was levelled at in the Scrowls of general Com­plaints tabled against disorderly Ministers at our last Synod, yea or no? Did not the Presbytery offer to enter upon a fair Trial of any of their Members, in Case they would nominate any of them, and did not they urge them earnestly with many Reasons to be plain in the Case? Did not they also offer to drop their Enquiry upon the Head, upon their declaring that none of their Number was [Page 128] intended? and yet did not they obstinately refuse to comply with either of these Demands! Is this Justice, Charity or Order?

12. Who incense the Members of Congregations against their proper Pastors, by their Intrusions, uttering their groundless Surmises, and making loud Exclamations against them, without offering to bring the Matter to a fair Proof or Trial: Is this Religion?

13. Who make their own groundless Guesses or uncharitable rash Judgments of the secret States of their Brethren's Souls, the Rule of their Deportment towards them, by refusing one While to assist their Brethren at their publick Communion, another While refusing to partake of the Sacrament when present, for no other Reason, as far as hath appeared, but only their secret Sur­mises about their Brethren's secret State, when sound in Doctrine and blameless in Conversation: Is not this casting off Scripture entirely from being their Rule, and making the Commandments of God void by their own Surmises?

14. Who beat their Fellow-Servants with the Dog-Whip, by branding them with the opprobrious Names of Pharisees. Ahi­tophels, hypocritical Varlets and carnal Men, &c. in order to warm the Mobs against them; and yet doth it not seem, that the Design is to blacken Men's Characters, and to raise groundless Jealousies in others about them, in order to strengthen a Party and increase Divisions, more than any real Belief that we have such Ministers among us, as are loudly exclaimed against? Else will any tell us, why Men are so sparing of their Proofs, when they seem to be in such a Rage against the Persons exclaimed against? For if any of our Ministers were as grosly wicked as the Ministers exclaimed against are represented, when their Credit is brought low by Surmises, Mis-representations and Lies, would it not be the easiest Thing in the World to cast them upon a fair Trial? We readily grant, that such Ministers as can be proven to be careless of their own Souls, unskilful, unfaithful, blind, Enemies to God, having a Form of Godliness, but denyin [...] it's Power, or tainted with the Leaven of the corrupt Doctrine and Hypocrisy of the Pharisees, ought to be discarded and forsaken as Mr. Jenner says; but will standing up for Truth and Orde [...] and appearing against Mr. W—d's and T.'s Errors and D [...]orders, prove the above Charge against such Ministers as do so?

[Page 129] Qu. III. Seeing then Mr. T. quotes Jer. 23.22. to prove, that the Ministry of faithful Men doth blossom and bear Fruit, as the Rod of Aaron: If he means that Successfulness and good Fruit is a proper Characteristick of a faithful Minister, how will he reconcile that Text in the Sense of it with Jer. 7.27. Ezek. 3.7. or with Isai. 6.9, 10, 11. and ch. 53.1. or with Joh. 12.37,—41. or with the Account he gives of Micah's mourning in page 12 of his Sermon? Mic. 7.1. For tho' we do not desire in the least to plead for an unconverted Ministry, and we cannot be so uncharitable as to think that any of our Congre­gations, or the Members thereof, ever knowingly chose an un­converted Minister, or thought the better of any Man for being unconverted; yet we would have Mr. T. to consider, whether or no condemning orthodox and exemplary Ministers for carnal, meerly for Want of Success, be not such a crooked Rule as may lead Men to speak Evil of Dignities? as we have it in Jude 8. Yea, to speak Evil of those Things that they know not, as vers. 10. For will not such a Rule bear full hard upon the Ministry of the Holy One of Israel? For tho' we will own it, to the Glory of God's abounding Grace and rich Power, that the Gospel hath had its Success at Seasons; yet will Mr. T. tell us, whether the least Part of the Glory or Praise of the real Success of it, is due unto the Instrument? Was not Christ incomparably more excellent than all his Apostles, both for Gifts and Grace; and yet was not their Ministry more successful than his? For where do we read that Christ at one Sermon converted his three Thousand Souls, as we do of Peter's Sermon in Acts 2.41.? But who of the Sons of Wisdom would venture to draw the monstrous Conclusion, which would natively flow here-from by Mr. T.'s crooked Rule? 'Tis true, if Cries, Roarings, Convul­sions, Fits, and Grovelings on the Ground, &c. pass for Blos­soms, and if blind Zeal for a Party, vain Boastings, vain Ad­miration of Men's Persons, and uncharitable Censoriousness, crusted over with smooth Hypocrisy, as well as foul Language and black-mouthed Barking pass for Piety; it must be owned, that the late Preaching, or something that goes along with it, has been sufficiently successful; but if Attachment to Truth and Gospel Order, and the solid Exercises of Piety, be the proper Criterions of Piety; do not these seem to lose Ground in Proportion to the Industry in roving and walking willingly after the new Commandments, which are contrary to Gospel-Order? [Page 130] But what did Ephraim gain by mixing himself with the Crowd, but Strangers to devour his Strength when he knew it not, and grey Hairs here and there, when he knew it not? Hos. 7.8, 9. Can any think, that it was an easy Matter to make Ephraim believe, that he was upon the decaying Hand, when he was big with the thumping Notion, that the Hotch-potch Catholicism did Stall-feed him bravely?

Qu. IV. When therefore the Relation of Pastor and People is such a solemn Tie, founded upon a Divine Institution, confirmed by mutual solemn and publick Vows, made before God and many Witnesses; how inconsistent is it with Reason and Religion to assert, that it is in the Power of Pastor or Flock, to dissolve the Obligations of said Relation upon meer Conceits, Surmises or Inclinations in the Breasts of either Party? How can Jesuits trifle worse with solemn Contracts, than Mr. T. seems to do here? For must not we have something like the old Distinction for an Oil-salvo, if this Scheme takes place, I have sworn with the Tongue, but with the Heart I have sworn nothing at all? We think we durst appeal to Mr. T.'s own Conscience, if he were thus deserted by his own People (and as high as his Tide is, may not an Ebb follow?) whether he would not in his Heart disapprove the Practice, whether he would speak of it or no? Yea, would not all Mr. T.'s Arguments then lose their present Force, and would it not be Hackelon's Cow, or another Man's matter? For doth not this mutual Relation of Pastor and Flock imply a mutual Contract or Covenant? and to allow People the above unbounded Latitude, what is it but to encourage the Breach of that sacred Contract or Covenant which this Relation implies? Yea, is not it encouraging Men after Vows to make Enquiry, contrary to Prov. 20.25.? Yea, we appeal to all Men of Thought, whether such a Latitude be not inconsistent with all solid Comfort, which may flow from the Thoughts of their being fixed in such a Relation? From pag. 24—29. Mr. T. endea­vours to answer some Objections against his Doctrine concerning the unbounded Liberty of People's leaving their own Ministers upon the Grounds aforesaid. As for the first, it may pass, for let Moses's Chair be what it will, we shall not plead one Word for a corrupt Ministry, such as that of the Pharisees was, for we are taught that all new Gospels are null, tho' they were introduced by the Ministry of Angels, or by Men pretending to the imme­diate Guidance of a Divine Inspiration; and what but this makes [Page 131] us to oppose Mr. T. and Wd.'s new Scheme? But as for the other Objections, viz. 1. That such a disorderly deserting of Men's stated Pastors, will cause Heats and Contentions among People. 2. That such a Practice is condemned as carnal in 1 Cor. 1.12.3. That this Practice will grieve the Parish Minister. 4. That it is again condemned by Paul, who asserts, that Paul and Apollos are Nothing. 5. That by such Practice People go out of God's Way, &c. Before we come to speak particularly to each Objection, we shall propose one or two general Queries.

Qu. I. Do not all Mr. T.'s Answers to these Objections plainly suppose, that the Members of particular Congregations stand in as great an Indifferency, and that justly, to hear their own chosen and stated Pastor, to whom they stand related, as any other Minister, whom they please to apply to? But if the Matter were really so, what serves the pastoral Relation for? Is it not contracted in vain, at least to no good Purpose? For if the Mem­bers of a particular Congregation are no more obliged to attend upon their own Pastor's ministerial Administrations, than those of a Stranger, who comes any how in their Way; will it not follow, that the Minister is no more obliged to serve his own People than any others? And if so, will it not be Time to sound a Retreat, Return ye every Man to his Tent, wander ye Shepherds, scatter ye Sheep, and let every Man shift for him­self? And can the Devil desire better Advocates, than such as say, that no Man is in Brother's Keeper? And so instead of Wo to him that is alone, must not he be pronounced the happy Man? For he breaketh no Bonds, and if he falleth, shall not he lie down as long as he pleaseth? For who will give him the unwelcome Disturbance of helping him up? And so was it not a brave Time, when there was no King in Israel? For had not Men then full Liberty, to do what seem [...]d good in their own Eyes, as their Inclinations prompted them? And so, instead of calling the Sheep that were without a Shepherd, to lament, might not Mr. T. agreeably to the Strain of his Application here, raise an Use of Consolation, and pronounce them an happy People, both upon the Account of the Bereavement, and also upon the Account of their Opportunity of getting a non-such Pastor, who upon hearing their Declarations, would presently read their Hearts, and tell them Dreams as fast as they could tell him Falshoods?

Qu. II. To put the Matter in a fair Light; we will suppose two Congregations in a City, both vacant at the same Time, one [Page 132] of which in some Time obtains a Minister settled and fixed among them as their Pastor, to the good Liking of the whole Congregation; we will again suppose, that the other Congre­gation some Time after, also gets a Minister to settle among them to be their Pastor, which last Minister is visibly to all Appearance superiour to the first in Gifts and Accomplishments; now we would ask, Whether the Superiority of the Gifts in the second Minister, would be a just Reason for the other Congre­gation to leave their own Minister, that is, merely because the other Minister excells him in Gifts, or their imbibing a Conceit that they shall be better edified elsewhere, while in the mean Time they cannot charge their own Minister with any Blemishes in Doctrine or Conversation, and his Gifts are what they were satisfied with, and gladly took up with at first? If so, would not this be to censure, yea in Effect to depose a faithful sufficient Minister of the Gospel, yea to cashier him, because the sovereign God hath thought fit to give a greater Measure of Gifts to another? And if People act thus, may not we bid farewel to all good Order, Relations, Obligations and Duties between Pastor and People in the Church of God? And so, tho' the Scripture saith, that God is a God of Order in all the Churches of his Saints; is not the Church of Christ by such deforming Principles, represented more bandless, confused, and liker a Babel than any Society in the World? For if Matters be thus, will it not follow, that when a Minister is invited or called to fix as a Pastor among a People, the true Meaning and English of the People calling that Minister, is no more than this, viz. We are willing and contract to receive you as our Pastor now, but with this Reservation, that as soon as we or any of us can get an Op­portunity of a better, we will be no longer bound to you, altho' we should have no Fault to lay to your Charge? Is all the rest Irish? And if this be rational, orderly, discreet and becoming the Piety of the Church, or the Dignity of the ministerial Character, let Reason judge. And finally, we would ask, whether the Mini­ster hath not as great a Liberty to leave his Congregation, or any part of them? If so, where is there any Obligation or pastoral Relation between them? And is not the fixing of a Pastor in a Place a meer Notion? If not, will it not follow, that relative Obligations are not reciprocal and mutual? And is not this repugnant to the common Sense of Mankind?

[Page 133]But to come to Obj. 1. viz. That such a Practice will cause Heats and Contentions, or rather to Mr. T. [...]s Answer thereto, where we shall also consider the 4th Objection, viz. That such a Practice will grieve the Parish Minister.

Qu. I. We entirely agree with Mr. T. that the Gospel is only the Occasion, but not the true Cause of Contentions; but yet may not Men strangely abuse the Gospel by preaching it out of Contention, in a disorderly intruding Manner, to make Parties and Factions, and thereby become culpable Causers of Division? And is not the Abuse of good Things for sinister Ends, the worst Abuse Men can be guilty of? Phil. 1.16.

Qu. II. Tho' we allow Men should seek the greater Good; yet we would ask, Whether this greater Good be most likely to be obtained in the Way of God's Appointment, and in the Use of regular and not irregular Means? Or whether the Notion that stolen Bread is sweet, be a true or a false Notion? Or to use Mr. T.'s own Phrase, Doth not he act like a Fool, who forsakes his own chaste Wife. in Hopes of getting more Pleasure in the Embraces of a Strumpet?

Qu III. Doth not Mr. T. teach Church-Members the Knack of treating their own Pastors, as Potiphar's Wife served Joseph, by asserting that the Plea of their not profiting under their Ministry, is a just Cause to forsake them; whereas when the Minister is pious, orthodox and regular, so that others profit by his Ministry, is not there a great Probability, if not something more, that the Fault may be at their own Door, and not at their Minister's?

Qu. IV. Who can those Prae-Adamites be among Protestants, That confine Opposition and Division, as following upon living God­liness and successful Preaching, if thereby is meant the Preaching of Truth and the Exercises of true Piety, to the first Ages of Christianity? For have not all the Oppositions and Divisions between Protestants and Papists, as well as many others, arisen since? And if there be no such Men in the Protestant World, is not there good Reason to fear, that such neither know them­selves nor the Gospel? If there be such Men, let Mr. T. point them out; for may not a small Part of the History of latter Ages soon confound such a brainless Opinion, before it hath Time to hatch, even tho' it were placed so high as the Eagle's Eggs in Jupiter's royal Lap, to breed Fables to fill the Pulpit?

Qu. V. That there is a Mixture of sincere Christians and [Page 134] masked Hypocrites in the visible Church, is readily granted: But yet we would ask Mr. T. whether he hath found out a specifick Preservative to ward off this Mixture? Or hath he found a Mould to cast a true Touch-Stone, to point out the close Hy­pocrite, while he keeps on his religious Mask? Or is there any Body wiser than him, that said, Let both grow together until the Harvest, lest while ye gather up the Tares, ye root up also the Wheat with them? Matth. xiii. 29, 30. If Christ hath given a new Commission since, to the contrary, will our great Men shew us where to find it? Besides, who will be judge to decide this Matter, viz. Who are and who are not Hypocrites? For may not the Hypocrite think as highly and speak as vauntingly of himself and his Attainments and Comforts, so that the true Christian, tho' as eminent as Paul, dare not compare with him in such Matters, if his Words pass for Sterling, be [...]ng quite dash▪ with his swelling, proud, supercilious, loud Boastings? Witness the Church of Laodicea and the proud false Apostles, Rev. iii. 17. 2 Cor. x. 12. Yea, may not the Hypocrite fairly out-do the true Christian, or many such, in an out-side Shew and Cen­soriousness, particularly in justifying himself and despising others? Luke xviii, 9. Can Mr. T. think it safe for honest Men, to set any of this Cut upon the Bench? Or can he suppose, that these will give up their Claim to Men of better Temper, as long as they have a Vote in the Case, when Men of this Cut judge, that they have full Commission already, to draw their unchari­table Censures thro' the very Hearts of other Christians, who in all Appearance are far better than themselves? Witness Rome's Claim to be the only true Church, and the loud Cry of erroneous Enthusiasts, that they are the only spiritual Men in all Ages.

Qu. VI. Whereas Mr. T. queries, Have not these, viz. the Hypocrites, a fixed Enmity against the other, viz. the Sincere? Yes: For Nothing but Grace can effectually root out the En­mity. Yet, as Mr. T. tells us before, May it not have its Edge much blunted by other Means? But Who, is Who still. Mr. T. further asks, How is it then possible, that a Harmony should subsist between such, till their Nature be changed? Answer. By purging Men of enthusiastick Notions; by setting up Christ's Rule and Standard in Faith and Practice, and keeping to it; by obliging every one to keep his proper Post; and by repro­ving the unruly, and turning out the scandalous and obstinate [Page 135] Offender, there may at least be a good Degree of Harmony. But can it be expected, that a perfect Harmony is attainable in the visible Church, where their is not only a Mixture of Tares and Wheat, but where the Wheat hath Straw and Chaff, so that no Member is at a perfect Harmony with itself? Further, may not true Grace, particularly Charity, do Wonders, in bear­ing what is sufferable; as well as peevish Ill-Nature will, in its Way, do Wonders too, by making Mountains of Mole-Hills and Beams of Straws or Sun-Beams? But Mr. T. asks, Can Light dwell with Darkness? We reply in another Query, Is it not good Advice to him that doubts the Possiblity of that, to feel his own Forehead well? And if that doth not resolve him, should not he knock and call loudly, Who is within there, till Somebody answers? If that will not do, may not he make some further Tryal in the Matter, by getting a proven Pair of Spectacles, to read Mr. W.'s Books, and this Sermon of Mr. T.'s? For when every Member of the visible Church hath Light and Darkness in himself, is it any Wonder, that an House or a Field can hold its Full of such Creatures, that have both Light and Darkness in them? For what will hinder this, unless some smoky, fiery, conceity Zealots get among the Crowd, to sound a stinking Trumpet, like that in Isa. lxv. 5. Stand by thyself, come not near me, for I am holier than thou? If it comes to this once, must not the honest Man make Room and give Place to the towring Hypocrite; or be in Danger of either being choak­ed with the Smoke, or burnt with the Fire of blazing Sparks?

Qu. VII. Whereas Mr. T. frankly owns, That undoubtedly it is a great Duty, to avoid just Cause of Offence to any Right well; we would then ask Mr. T. Is the Parish-Minister Some­body, or is he only Mr. No-Body? For, is it not just Cause of Offence to such, to hear his own Hearers censuring and con­demning him for a carnal Man, when orthodox and orderly, excepting only human Infirmities, which must be excepted in the best here? Is it not a just Offence to a pious faithful Mi­nister, to be slighted and forsaken by his own Flock, upon the Account of their imbibing a Notion, true or false, upon a slender Trial, that some disorderly Stragler is more gifted than he; when, to more judicious Hearers, the latter is no more than a tinkling Cymbal, that gives an uncertain Sound; and, for aught that can be proven, may be a meer Cheat for all the Crack? Is it not just Cause of Offence to an orthodox Minister, [Page 136] to hear his People say and plead, that they are better edified elsewhere, than by his Ministry? when it can be proven, that his Doctrine is sound Speech that cannot be condemned; when, at the same Time, the Writings of the much admired Preachers are a meer Hotch-Potch of Truth and Error; yea, and even Void of Common Sense in many Places? Or else, let us be put to the Proof. Is it not a just Cause of Offence to a faithful Minister, who hath for a long Season preached the Gospel in Purity to his Flock, to see his Hearers running after Errors and Errorists, and forsaking better Food; yea, so far from loving the Truth, that they cannot endure sound Doctrine, without spurning at it? Is it not just Cause of Offence to the Parish Minister, to hear his own Flock pleading for Liberty to desert him, upon the bare Proposal of their Inclinations, right or wrong, to do so; or it may be deserting him without so much as acquainting him therewith? Is it not just Cause of Offence to the Parish Minister, when requiring no Obedience but Con­formity to God's Commands, to have his wholsome Exhortati­ons neglected and despised, instead of being obeyed; when the Encouragers of Disorders are hearkened to with Readiness? May not such and the like Appearances of the Want of Love to Truth and Order, as well as of Disregard to Christ's Au­thority, and their own real Good, justly grieve a pious Pastor, who weighs the Matter right, when he sees a likely Congre­gation once, in a likely Way to scatter and to break to Pieces, after all his Pains to gather and keep them together, meerly for Want of Men's Studying to be quiet, and to do their own Business, as we are taught in 1 Thess. iv. 11? And if what Mr. T, saith, page 27. that it is but few that have got any spiritual Relish; may it not be justly feared, by his own Rule, that the Doctrine, which is admired and flocked to by the Crowds of all Sorts, is none of the best? And can Mr. T. tell us, why may not the Want of this spiritual Relish, incline Peo­ple to forsake the wholsome Doctrine of the Parish Minister? How then can it be a safe Rule, to give Way to Inclinations to sway us in such Matters, contrary to our own Vows and Scrip­ture?

Qu. VIII. Whereas Mr. T. adds, That it is highly necessary, that pious Souls should maintain Union and Harmony among them­selves, notwithstanding of their different Opinions in lesser Things. And, no doubt, this is the Drift of the many Exhortations we have [Page 137] to Peace and Unity in Scripture. Well then, should not pious Ministers write good Patterns, in being studious to maintain Union and Harmony among themselves too? For what but the Want of this among the Ministers, is the Cause of all the Con­fusion among the People? And are not the Things wherein Mr. T. and his Party differ from the Rest of the Ministers of our Synod, as far as hath yet openly appeared in their Debates, Things of a lesser Nature, whatever this new Confusion may breed? How then doth Mr. T. follow his own Prescriptions here? For can he think, that his divisive anarchical Methods of striving to make Rents and Factions, are the proper Methods to maintain Union and Harmony? Can any serious Christian think, that Mr. T. and his Party would like it well, if their Brethren, who are at some Difference with them, should be as industrious in their Bounds, as they have been elsewhere, to withdraw their Hearers from them, and to disturb their Peace and Order? Or if they should approve of such Methods, would it not argue, that they had not any great Regard for the Souls of their Flock? If the Meaning of this be, that this Union and Harmony is only to be maintained with their own Partizans; as it seems to be, if we observe the Conduct, towards others, of a Knot of Gentlemen, who set up their own Party for the only true Catholicks or spiritual Men: If this be the Intent, is not the Law of the right Pharisee, a Popish Cut? For did not the former teach Men, thou shalt love thy Neighbour and hate thine Enemy? Matth. v. 43. And did not the latter teach Men, that no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks? But doth not Scrip­ture teach us, that there is a Peace and Unity that we are to cultivate with all Men as much as possible, much more with all Protestants of different Denominations, and much more with those in our own Dominions than those in Moravia? And why may not there be Peace and Unity, in some Respects, singular, which we are to cultivate with those of our Denomination or Society, without being Guilty of Bigotry? And seeing Mr. T. on this Head, mentions the Unity of the Legion of Devils in one Man, and of Ahab's false Prophets, which were four Hundred Daubers, &c. in order to cast Contempt on the Parish-Ministers; we would ask, what Sort of an Union and Harmony there is between him, and Mr. Whitefield and Wesley, when the Writings of the former of the two last, is a motley Mixture of Truth and Error, Popery and Protestantism, Antinomianism, Armini­anism, [Page 138] Calvinism and Enthusiasm, and those of the latter pure Arminianism, as far as hath, as yet, appeared? Who then are the Daubers and moderate Men, as to fundamental Truths and Gospel-Order? Or are any Daubers better, because of their Harping upon different Strings to confound Truth and Order? Or will the Majority's being of a Side now hallow all any more than formerly?

As to the second and fourth Objection, because they seem to coincide, we place them together, viz. That such a Practice here pressed to, is like that of the factious Corinthians, who said, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, which the Apostle condemns as carnal, because Paul and Apollos were Nothing.

Qu. I. Let it be granted, That Ministers and private Chris­tians too, should be esteemed according to their Gifts, if their De­portment be as regular as their Gifts are bright, but not other­wise: But yet, is there not a particular Esteem, which we owe to our own Ministers, as well as Wives, upon the Account of their Relation to us, and for their Works Sake, as we are taught 1 Thess. v. 13? And if they are faithful, can we give away to another their just Due? And is not this done, if we neglect to attend upon their Ministry ordinarily? For whether we confess it or no, doth not the Practice prove a Slight and Undervalue in the Matter? Yea, let it be granted, that Members of Con­gregations may, without Offence, take their Liberty to go to hear other neighbouring, orderly Ministers, or a Stranger that comes in an orderly Manner, occasionally, and at Seasons: Yet, doth not the Case alter, when Men come in a disorderly, intru­ding Manner, to make Parties, setting up Threshold against Threshold, and Altar against Altar, pressing People to forsake their own stated orderly Pastors, upon trivial Excuses and Sur­mises; and abusing such as cleave to their own Pastors with op­probrious Names of Dupes and Dunces, &c. when Men send their Missionaries, industriously to foment and keep up Factions and Divisions, and when Men labour to cast Contempt and Dis­dain upon other Ministers, by Carnalizing and Pharisizing them meerly for opposing Errors and Disorders? Doth not Mr. T. plainly yield up the Contest here, when he saith, That the Apostle, in the aforesaid Places, reproves an excessive Love to, or Admiration of particular Ministers, accompanied with a sinful Contention, Slighting and Disdaining of others, who are truly godly, and with Sect-making? If this then be not the Case now, we [Page 139] appeal to all uprejudiced Persons, that know any Thing of the Matter?

Qu. II. When Paul and Apollos preached the same Gospel equally pure, was it not a sinful Idolizing of the Instrument, to say, that the one preaches edifyingly, and that the other did not? And if the Case were the same now, as to the Pastor and Itinerant, would it not deserve the same Censure? But in Case that it can be proven, that many of our stated Pastors, who are despised, preach the Gospel more orthodoxly than some Itine­rants, whose Doctrine is heterodox in many weighty Points of Doctrine; who can believe, but that the Notion some entertain, of their getting greater Good by a false Doctrine than they might get by a true one, if the Fault be not their own, can be any thing else but a meer Fiction and Delusion?

As to the fifth and last Objection, viz. That what hath been said about People's getting of Good or greater Good over their Parish-Line, is a meer Fiction, for they are out of God's Way. To which Mr. T. answers, That there are three monstrous Ingre­dients in the Objection, viz. A Begging of the Question in Debate, rash Judging, and Limiting of God.

Qu. I. Whether or no the Monstrousness of the Objection be not a full Proof, that some wicked Hugonot invented it, for doth not it bear his false Image? Or did it get its Monstrous­ness by its Unhappine [...]s in getting a false juggling God-Father, who called it Nick, when he should have called it John; or did the Taylor spoil it, by losing his Memory or Measure, and so ma [...]e it a Pair of Trowsers for a Cap? However, let it be agreed, that every Man shall father his own Child, and let the biggest Beggar wear a proper Crown, by being obliged to wear a b [...]gger [...]ed Letter than common, as long as he keeps any thing in Possession, got by the begging Trade, and no longer.

Qu. II. Can Mr. T. have the Courage to out-face the Truth so far, as to say, that it is begging the Question, to say, that the Relation of particular Pastors and particular Flocks is God's Appointment, as well as that of Husband and Wife, and accor­dingly, that as the one Couple should dwell together, so the other Couple should, at least, ordinarily walk in Gospel-Fellow­ship with one another, without forsaking their own Assemblies or stated Meetings? Will Mr. T. call any Dupes and Dunces, for asserting, that this is God's Way? Can Mr. T. think, that all the Ciceronian Eloquence he is Master of, or all the frightful [Page 140] and abusive Language he can turn his Tongue to, can so far a­muse or scare any of his intelligent Readers, that are well grounded in the Principles of the Christian Religion, as to [...] ­lieve, that the Relation of Pastor and Flock, and the Obligations to perform and observe the relative Duties of this Relation, are not sacred; or that it is an indifferent Matter to any, that would discharge a good Conscience, whether they will keep and observe those solemn Vows, which they have made of attending upon the sacred orderly Administrations of their orderly Pastors, on not? Can any Man, upon Scripture Grounds, think, that a disorderly breaking off from an orderly Pastor, upon the Grounds Mr. T. here lays down, in order to join elsewhere, is such a Sign of Grace or Conversion, as will afford Comfort upon a Sick or Death Bed? For how can the Recoilings of the wilful Breach of solemn Vows and Contracts, be such easy Burdens to the Conscience in a serious Hour, as Men seem now to esteem them? But whether Mr. T. aims at the Imitation of any cele­brated Orator, we will not determine: However, would not he do well to consider, whether or no his Language, in this, be not more fellifluous than mellifluous? For are not uncharitable Insinuations, rash Censures, satyrical Expressions and opprobrious Names, to cast Contempt upon his Brethren and their Adherents▪ a great Part of this Discourse? Besides, are not some Scripture Texts herein, strangely wrested to no good Purpose, as far as we can see? And does not Mr. T. deal with his Brethren, as Potiphar's Wife with Joseph, by insinuating somewhat, as if some of the other Side did use some frightful Expressions to scare Men out of their Wits? Doth not Mr. T. here spoil his own Side? For are not frightful Expressions part of the ornamental Peculiarities of his own Party? For why should others be counted cowardly, if they, in their Turn, thrust the Nail of Terror, to put Men in Fits, Shocks and Despair, as well as o­thers?

Qu. III. When Men pretend, that they get Good, and greater Good, by running over the Parish Line, than within it, when their own Pastor preaches the same Word within it, and that probably more purely and therefore more powerfully, excepting only what Power the Strength of a Man's Voice or Motion gives it, or else let Mr. Wd.'s Sermons, and this Sermon of Mr. T. be compared with our common Notes; Now when the Matter is known to be thus, for Mr. T. himself grants a great Part, and we are [Page 141] willing upon Citation to appear to prove the rest, if any be so incredulous as to deny that we have done it already in our late Writing; is it any begging of the Question to say, that it is a meer groundless Fancy, for Men to think that they are better edified by a less pure Doctrine, than they might be by a purer One? or to say, that Men may easily deceive themselves in such Matters, by thinking that they embrace Juno, when 'tis no more but a Cloud; like Laodicea, who thought not only that they were rich, and that they were increased in Goods, and more, that they wanted nothing; when in Reality it was no more than a big, noisy, empty Nothing, after all the Cry, vaporous Brag and Puff? Who can doubt but that a Bladder may look big, when it contains nothing in it but Wind? And may it not make a rattling Noise, when there is nothing in it but a few Pebbles? And if we look in Isa. 26.18. may not Men be with Child and in Pain and bring forth Wind, now as well as formerly? For tho' it must be owned, that some of the crying or roaring Women among us have brought forth since something that may be both seen and felt, and others, if Reports be true, are in a likely Way to do the like, in due Time; and by the After-fruits, ha [...]e not we had Reason to think that some others were sick of a spiritual Cholick? and when these have been once proclaimed Converts among the rest, is it not wholesome Advice to him that standeth upon such sandy Bottoms, as sudden Fits and humane Testimony, to take Heed left he fall? For may not Men now as well as formerly, kindle a Fire, and compass themselves about with the Sparks, walk in the Light of their Fire and in the Sparks which they have kindled, when the End will be lying down in Sorrow? Isa. 50.11. For, as Mr. T. saith, Is not the Nature of Men and Devils still the same? Besides, when Men plead, that their great Edification abroad, is a sufficient Reason for them to dissolve the sacred Bond of their Relation to their stated Pastor, or to excuse their Non-attendance upon his pastoral Administrations; ought not they to make Proof of this, or else how can others admit of it as a Reason? Is their asserting or say-so, that they know it and feel it, a sufficient Proof that the Matter is so, to others? Or will Mr. T.'s Guesses and Say-soes pass for Proof for them? Is it not their Part to prove what they assert, as a Reason of their suing for a Dismission, or else must not such Assertions drop, and be cashier­ed as Non-relievant? Who then begs the Question, according to Mr. T.'s own Rule, viz. That begging the Question is to suppose [Page 142] a Thing which should be proved, and to reason from it: And as great Dupes and Dunces as Mr. T. may count us, can he think that it is such a Midnight with us, that we do not see, that all his Arguings on this Head, are all poor begging of the Question, joined with gigantick Confidence? For Instance, 1. It is said, sor [...]e are carnal; and is it not argued thence, as if it was proven the Parish Minister was carnal, but where is the Proof of it? 2. It is asserted, that some Men are more gifted than others, but is it not argued as if it was proven, that Mr. T.'s Party are thus gifted, but where is the Proof? 3. It is said, some are carnal and some are converted, but is it not argued thence as if the People know which is which, but where is the Proof? 4. It is owned Men may have good Inclinations; but will that prove that all Men's Inclinations to desert their own Ministers are good; where is the Proof? 5. It is insinuated, that some Preachers are more edifying than others; but yet is it not argued, as if it was proven, that all itinerant Preachers are more edifying than the Parish Ministers, and that therefore Men are better edified by going out of the Parish Line, than by waiting upon God in their own Parish, where his Ordinances are administred in Purity; but how is this proved? Is it any Proof of this, that when Men before made an orthodox Profession of Truth, and that with seeming Love to it and Zeal for it, that they now assert Errors as fast wi [...]h greater Appearance of Zeal? Will Men's turning unruly and disorderly, who before observed Gospel Order, prove that they are more edified? Who can believe that Men are better edified, when those that appeared Sons of Peace, turn factious and contentious; when those that seemed meek and humble, do now delight in proud, austere Censoriousness, and black-mouthed Barking; when those that before spoke well, do now speak evil of Dignities; when those that before waited duly at the Posts of God's Gates, are seldom seen to wait there, but when their Idol is there; when those that before seemingly took Delight in hearing a Gospel-Sermon, do now in some Places mutter because their Minister quotes too many Scripture-Proofs in his Sermon, counting that a Quotation or two in a Sermon is full enough; and therefore how can Gospel Ministers expect to be respected, when the Gospel itself is despised? When such and the like Fruits appear, is it any rash Judging to judge that such deceive themselves, who think they increase in Grace, who are visibly turned from the solid Exercises of Religion, to crooked Ways and vain Janglings?

[Page 143] Qu. IV. Whereas Mr. T. saith, That to oblige Church-Members to wait for ordinary upon the ministerial Administrations of their own Pastor, is limiting the Holy One of Israel: What strange Strides are these for a wise Man? Cannot Man be limited to wait upon God in a Way of Duty, according to God's Appoint­ments, but this must limit God? Doth God's limiting the Ocean, imply that he is thereby limited? Did God's bringing Man under a Law or Covenant, which limited Man in Point of Duty, any Way limit God in Point of Grace? If so, how should there be any Room for God to enter into a second Co­venant with fallen Sinners, in and thro' a Mediator? Was God limited by his limiting his publick Worship in a peculiar Manner at Jerusalem; or by his limiting the Priesthood to the House of Aaron and the Tribe of Levi, even tho' all the Con­gregation of Israel was holy? And yet did not Korah, tho' a Levite, suffer Vengeance for attempting to cross and confound the Limits God put between the House of Aaron and the Levites, and those between the Levites and the rest of the Tribes of Israel? And is not this written for our Instruction? Is God limited by his confining the publick Administration of his publick Church-Ordinances to publick Officers regularly called; or by his fixing a stated Relation between a particular Pastor and a particular Flock, any more than he is limited as to the Continuation of Mankind, by fixing a particular Relation between an Husband and Wife? But who among us limit God more in this Matter; than those who suspend the Success of sacred Admi­nistrations upon the Gifts or Grace of the Minister or Inclination of the People, yea than those that pronounce the same Word, preached by the Parish Minister unedifying, that is pronounced edifying when preached out of the Parish Lines, as if Disorder itself would secure the Success; or than those who assert that Men must have such and such high Degrees of Law-Terrors, in order to Conversion and must be kept for a considerable Time under them, in order to bring them to the Birth, pronouncing all unconverted, who are not brought home in such an observable Manner, as to be able to account for the Manner of their Con­version by Feelings; as if God's Cords of Grace and Love had lost their Strength and Force? Is it not very strange, that Men who count the Fixing the Bounds of Man's Duty the Limiting of God, do unawares on the other Hand really stint and pre­scribe the Manner that God shall carry on Conversion Work? [Page 144] How alien to the Purpose in Hand is Mr. T.'s quoting several Scriptures to prove God's Unsearchableness, in order as it would seem to prove, that People may or ought to forsake their own Minister for ordinary, and go to hear others, upon the Grounds aforesaid? May not a Man with half an Eye see, that to draw such an Inference from the Doctrine of God's Unsearchableness, is a palpable inconsequential Consequence, which cannot be forced from it with any Colour of Reason? For doth not this prove, that he is a God nigh at Hand as well as a God afar off, or within as well as without the Parish Line? Tho' God be unsearchable and his Ways past finding out; yet hath not he declared his Statutes to Israel, and shewed Man what is good, so that he that reads may run in the Way of Duty? Tho' his Spirit like the Wind bloweth where it listeth, as being a free Agent in all his gracious Operations; yet hath not he made it our Duty to watch daily at his Gates, and to wait at the Posts of his Doors; and hath not he commanded the Blessing, even Life, upon the Mountains of Zion? Prov. 8.34. Ps. 133.3. Tho' Jehovah rides upon the gloomy Cloud; yet hath not he made it our Duty to walk in the Way of his Commandments? Tho' he makes Darkness his Pavilion, doth not he require, that we should walk in the Light? Tho' his Paths are in the great Waters, yet hath not he made it our Duty to keep upon a sure Foundation, and not to venture into the deep Waters, lest we sink too soon? But what is this to the Matter in Hand? For when we know that God is unsearchable, is it Wisdom for us to take the Wings of the Morning to try to search him out, by climbing up to Heaven, or going into the Deep, or by riding upon the Clouds of Enthusiasm, or by dwelling in the Darkness of Ignorance, Errors and Disorders, and be sure to dwell the appointed Time in the deep Waters of Discomfort and Despair, according to the new forged Canon, till some petty Pope signs an Absolution; and in order to find such unhappy Paths, desert our own Pastors, who are not like to lead poor Souls into them, because they fear God, love his Word, pity Souls, considering themselves? Is not this a rare Piece of mystical Divinity? It is a great Truth, that God is every where, and worketh where, when and as he listeth; yet is this any Rule for Men to go over the Parish Line, rather than into the Parish-Kirk, when God's essential Presence is in both alike, without the least Difference? For may not he that tarries at home, and goes to neither of the two, [Page 145] make as good a Plea for himself as either of the two, that he limits not God; for may not he say, that God may as well meet him upon his Bed or his Fire-side as in the Church or Field? For who can say, but that God may as well wo [...]k without and contrary to Means as with them? For how else was the Spirit of Prophesy poured down on Mr. Wd. when reading a Play-Book? Is not this a fine Droll to wound Religion under the fifth Rib, when we pretend to stand up for it? For by Parity of Reason, may not Men without any great Stretch further, tell us, that we should not confine ourselves to read our Bibles or other Scriptural Books, in order to our Christian Improvement, left we limit God? Shall we once more see the Time, when it will be told that a Play-Book, Pack of Cards, and the Book of Sports, must have their Turns, that Satan may be let loose under the Pretence of Gospel Liberty? For may not the Pretence of not limiting of God, with little more Courage, serve to cloak all as well as some Disorders? But yet, is not God's Word a surer Rule by far, which teacheth that every particular Congregation are to have their particular Pastor? When therefore God hath by his Providence brought us to a particular Relation to a Godly Minister, Have not we better Grounds in the Word of Truth, to expect God's Blessing upon the Labours of an orderly Minister, whom we in Obedience to Christ, have solemnly chosen according to Divine Institution, to take the Over-sight of us in the Lord, than upon the Administrations of a disorderly Intruder? Is it not evident, that neither Minister nor People can fulfil the Duties of that Relation to each other, without walking in Fellowship with each other in attending upon Gospel-Ordinances according to God's Word, without forsaking their own Assemblies? With­out such an Attendance, what is the Pastoral Relation but an empty Sound and meer Mockery? If then the Ties or Bonds of this Relation, which is God's Institution, obliges the Flock to attend upon the pastoral Administrations of their own Pastor, as well as their own solemn Vows made at their contracting such a Relation; can any in Faith expect, that the King who is held in the Galleries, will be more likely to meet them, by their starting out of their assigned Post and Place, than by keeping in it? Will any tell us, what is that Cause which the Scripture assigns as sufficient to justify the ordinary Forsaking, or Non-Attendance of a stated Member of a Congregation upon the regular sacred Administrations of an orderly Pastor, while the [Page 146] said Relation subsists, and no providential Let stands in the Way? For is it not a great Truth, that no act of Religion, how glaring and specious soever, hath a real Tendency to advance the Glory of God, or to promote the real Good of Souls, than when due Regard is had in the Performance of it to the Rule of God's Word, both as to the Matter and Manner? And can we think, that those Acts, which tho' for the Matter may be good or middling, yet as to their Manner are downright irregular, and dishonourable to God and Religion, shall be blessed for our greater Good, than those which both for the Matter and Man­ner are scriptural? Or may not we rather expect, that if we lead our selves into Temptation, by going to ramble out of the Way of Duty, by deserting our proper Guides and Station, that this may provoke God to desert us, to remove our Candlesticks, and encourage Satan to tempt us with such delusive Notions as may make Truth and Duty hateful to us, because contrary to our wandring Inclinations, and vain Admiration of Persons, and Love to vain Janglings?

When therefore Mr. T. hath cleared the former Objections, and our Reasoning thereupon, we desire him to answer us, Whether the Practice of deserting the sacred Administrations of Men's stated godly and orthodox Pastors, upon meer Conceits, Surmisings and groundless Jealousies, about their secret States, or other secret Reasons, which admit of no solid Proof, be not

• 1. A plain Violation of Scripture Precepts, Heb. 10.25. 1 Thess. 5.12, 13.
• 2. A plain Violation of Men's own solemn Vows and Con­tracts.
• 3. A practical Denial of the stated Relation between Pastor and People.
• 4. A Practice that is subversive of all Gospel Church Order.
• 5. A Practice that is subversive of all stated religious Societies and Assemblies.
• 6. A Practice that hath a native Tendency to lead Men to perpetual Backslidings.
• 7. A Practice that hath a native Tendency to strengthen Men's Temptations who have taken Offence, tho' never so causelesly or unjustly.
• 8. A Practice that hath a native Tendency to weaken the Hands of Pastor and People, and to alienate their Affections from each other.
• [Page 147]9. A Practice that tends to keep back the Disengaged from lifting themselves under Christ's Banner.
• 10. A Practice that reflects upon the Stedfastness or Constancy of its Practisers.
• 11. A Practice that is divisive and factious in itself.
• 12. A Practice that tends to destroy Men's own Labours in the Gospel.
• 13. A practical Denial of all the ministerial Authority of Pastors over their own Flock.
• 14. A Practice that hath a native Tendency to drive away the Gospel and the orderly Administrations of it's Ordinances.
• 15. A Practice that is altogether irreconcilable with the Presbyterian Constitution, and all other Protestant Plans of Church Order, which the World hath been acquainted with.

5. As to Mr. T.'s pathetick Exhortation, to a speedy and sin­cere Improvement of a faithful Ministry, we heartily approve of it; but yet we would ask,

Qu. I. How will Mr. T. reconcile his Exhortation with the main Drift of this whole Sermon, which appears to be, to cast Contempt upon the Body of the Clergy of this Generation as Crowds of Pharisees, &c.? How then can this adulterous Ge­neration shew their Regaad to faithful Ministers, unless they go to build the Tombs of the Prophets? Experience tells us, that a fawning Absalom in the Gate may so far steal the Hearts of the People, under so good a Government as that of David was, as to raise a Rebellion against God and the King; and yet tho' Things were brought to that mournful Pass, that the Crowd was after Absalom, when David had but his Handful left, who but a black-mouthed barking Shimei would curse his lawful Sovereign in the Day of his Straits and Disgrace, or call him a Son of Belial? Can Mr. T. think that it will be to his Honour or Comfort, that he hath given too much of a Handle to Gospel-Hearers in many Places by the present Sermon, to treat their faithful Pastors much after the same Manner Shimei did David, instead of improving their Ministry, as Mr. T. here owns, they should have done? How can Mr. T. reconcile Men's forsaking their own orderly and even gracious Pastors, upon a meer Notion, Men may imbibe upon a slender Trial, that another is more gifted than them, or upon a bare Inclination or Judgment, or upon a Notion of their being better edified else­where, [Page 148] where, with his warm Exhortation to a speedy and sincere Improvement of a faithful Ministry? What strange Inconsisten­cies will Bigotry to a favourite Opinion or Party, drive or drag a Person into? Can any think that publick Exclamations against orthodox Ministers, and rash censuring of them for carnal Men, Hypocrites and Pharisees, &c. are proper Means to incite People to make a due Improvement of the ministerial Labours of their Pastors? Can any think that it is a light Matter for Men to attempt to marr the Usefulness and Success of an orthodox Mini­stry, by their uttering groundless Surmises, false Reports and dark Insinuations, to raise unjust Prejudices against orderly Ministers? Do they act a wise Part even for themselves, who strive to raise their own Characters by such sinistrous Methods as the blackening of the Characters, and marring the Usefulness of such who labour in Quietness to act a faithful Part in their Day and Station? For may not such easily do more Hurt than Good in their Generation, for all their seeming Pains and Industry otherwise?

Qu. II. Whereas Mr. T. in the Close of his Exhortation, insinuates something, as if he was apprehensive, that the Life of Godliness should be consulted and warred against, and Christ's Kingdom and Apostles should be opposed by the modern Pharisees; we would ask, can Mr. T. acquaint the World, who of our Ministers have opposed any of the regular Exercises of Piety, or Christ's Kingdom; or even the regular Exercises of the minis­terial Authority of any of his Party? If any in our Day pre­tend to be Apostles, or act as such, ought not they to produce a sealed Commission, or else will not God's Word call them, will they nill they, deceitful Workers? Is opposing Mr. W.'s and Mr. T.'s Errors, and their and their Party's anarchical Disorders, the opposing of God's Work, Christ's Kingdom, or the Life of Piety? Seeing Men therefore seem to glory in the Opposition they meet with, as if all were suffering Persecution for Christ; ought not they to consider, that it is not Sufferings, but the Cause of Sufferings makes the Martyr? For hath not Christ forbid his Followers, to bring themselves into Sufferings for being Evil-Doers and Busy-Bodies in other Men's Matters, by going out of their Places and Callings, to disturb others in their proper Stations? 1 Pet. iv. 15. Was not Opposition for being a wild, unruly Man, the true Character, not of an Isaac, but of an Ishmael, who had his Hand against every Man, and [Page 149] every Man's Hand against him? Gen. xvi. 12 Doth not Mr. T. make himself something like this, when he stands up to make such a furious Assault upon the Characters of the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, when it is most certain, without all Peradventure, that a vast Number of them never gave him the least Provocation, nor could they, because they never knew his Name nor Face, nor he theirs? Did not the Church of old complain, that she was made the Keeper of other Vineyards, to the Hindrance of her keeping her own proper Vineyard? When therefore our true Solomon hath let out his Vineyard at Baal­hamon to proper Keepers, What Sort of Sons of the true Church are they, who neither keep their own Vineyards, nor suffer others to keep their allotted Parts of the Vineyard, without disturbing them; yea, who cry out Persecution, when their Brethren only desire them to keep their own Vineyards, and to forbear disturbing of others, in keeping their proper Parts, with their Errors, Intrusions, Disorders and false Alarms? May not the faithful Keepers of the Vineyard, make their silent Moan in this or the like Manner, "But if we must be still misrepresented by our sometimes Brethren, but now Disturbers and Reproachers, we are sorry for it, but cannot help it; and must place their opprobrious Aspersions and Defamations in the Number of those Burthens, which, by frequent Use, grow familiar and less pinching; and such, as seeing they are not to be avoided, doth not Wisdom dictate, that they ought to be contemned?" For if Satan himself is transformed into on Angel of Light; What Marvel is it, that those whose Office it is to be Lights of the World, do, by imbibing enthusiastick Notions, become Darkness; and that the Professors of Christianity, by being in­spired with blind Party-Zeal, are become Disturbers of the re­gular Exercises of Piety, and the Practisers of them, as well as of religious Order? For was not the Church persecuted in Zeal before now? Seeing therefore there is a Knot of Gentlemen of various Colours, who call themselves spiritual Men, are risen among us, who do so loudly defy the Armies of the living God, by Carnalizing and Pharisizing the stated orderly Mi­nisters of this Generation in general; and by duping and duncing all the Church-Members, that are so daring as to be orderly, by cleaving to their own orderly Pastors, and to stand up for Truth and Order; as long as we believe, that God is [Page 150] the God of both, and that the Church is a Fountain sealed, a Garden enclosed, a Vineyard delivered to Keepers by Parcels, and a City that is compact together; yea, that Christ is still at the Helm, and that his Church is built upon the Rock, and that the Gates of Hell shall, neither by Force nor fraud, ever prevail a­gainst it, for all their Rage and Roarings; we are resolved, in the Strength of God's Grace, not to fear the Reproach and Re­vilings of Men, as we are taught in Isa. li. 7. And therefore, to shew that we are only chastened, but not killed, we enter our Demur in the Cause, on the Behalf of the divine Institution of the Relation of particular Pastors and People, and of the Duty of Church-Members, to walk for ordinary in Church-Fellow­ship with their own stated Pastors, until the Bands be orderly dissolved, or just Reasons for it; and on the Behalf of the Christianity of a great Number of the Clergy of this Genera­tion, who are blackened by their Mothers angry Children, in order either to put some Stop to the Jehu Careers of false Re­proaches, or else to bring the Matter to a fair Trial; and may the Drunken, but not with Wine, give Ear. And seeing it may be probable, that when others sing their Sonnets so much and so loudly, we may have further Use for David's Psalter. Come War, come Peace, we shall conclude this Discourse with the first Verse of it. Ps. 1.1.

Blessed is the Man that walketh not in the Counsel of the Ungodly, nor standeth in the Way of Sinners, nor sitteth in the Seat of the Scornful.