I. Of judging others.

THIS has been much complained of in our day, and Mr. F. delivers high charges against us in that respect: but a calm view of his and others conduct on that head, might cause the same remark about judging, that bishop Burnet made con­cerning persecution, viz. that it look'd [...]s if ‘the only quarrel they had against it was, because they had not the managing of it themselves.’ Our author tells a long story of how he and his brethren preached much better than the separates, but I suppose he had forgot that Paul durst not make himself of the number of such as commend­ed themselves; and measured themselves by themselves.

So Dr. Chauncy, who wrote a great volume against the work 25 years ago, set down rash and uncharitable judging as one of the greatest evils of that day. And tho' he talks much of the scriptures, yet his evident standard is, themselves ▪ for he says, ‘I freely confess, had the mini­sters of New-England lost their character as men of re­ligion, by any deportment of themselves, contradictory to the gospel, I should have found no fault with any repre­sentation of them as bad men; nay, dangerous enemies to the kingdom of Christ: for I am clearly of the mind, that a visibly wicked minister is the greatest scandal to religion, and plague to the church of God: nor is it a hurt, but a real service to the cause of Christ, to expose the characters of such, and lessen their power to do mis­chief.’ ^* Thus he allows that if there had happened to have been a number of visibly bad ministers among us, it [Page 37] would have been a real service, and not hurt to expose them. But he has judged it to be otherwise; therefore for others to judge the contrary, is a sure evidence of their being rash and uncharitable men!

The first whom he names, as guilty of this daring crime, is Mr. Whitefield; and he begins his evidence against him, with telling us that he ‘seldom preached, but he had something or other, in his sermon, against unconverted ministers:’ and that afterward in his journal he ex­pressed "his fear lest ‘many, nay, the most that preach, do not experimentally know Christ.’ ^* And to prove this to be an abuse of the standing ministers now, he says, ‘Hear the opinion of that eminent man of God Dr. Cotton Mather upon this head:’ ^† who said, ‘There is not that spot of ground upon the face of God's earth, which can proportionably match New-England for mi­nisters.’ But when was it so? why I find by his life, that this opinion was published in 1691, when (as the fol­lowing words express) ‘No man became a minister in these churches, 'till he first became a communicant; and no man became a communicant, until he had been se­verely examined about his regeneration, as well as his conversation. If any minister do misbehave himself, he soon hears of it, and becomes either a penitent, or a de­posed man.’

This was Dr. Mather's testimony of the order of the churches in that day; but "what a degeneracy has come on since then! This same man of God said 24 years afterward. ‘There may be much chaff in the church.—Now, 'tis pro­phesied Mat. 3.12. He whose fan is in his hand, will throughly purge his floor. But verily, it must be with more than a little shaking that the sanning work will be carried on.’ Again he says, ‘There shall be men, qualified like, and influenced by, the angels of God; these Boanerges's, and sons of commotion, shall fly thro' the midst of heaven, having this everlasting gospel to preach unto the inhabitants of the earth. And our glorious Lord will shake heaven, and shake the earth, and shake all nations, till this glorious gospel be comply'd with­all.’ ^§

Here reader take notice, when a passage from that author seem'd to suit Dr. Chauncy's turn, then he is an [Page 38] "eminent man of God;" but in this now quoted, which so exactly agrees with the work which he opposed, see if Dr. M. escapes the charge of enthusiasm. The main objection which he advances against the work that was carried on under the ministry of those sons of Thunder, is that, ‘wherever it takes place, the subjects of it, too generally are unchari­table to neighbours, to brethren of the same community to relatives, to ministers in an especial manner.’ ^* That is, when their eyes were opened to see that they were men of unclean lips, they saw also that they dwelt in the midst of a people of unclean lips: and this caused "more than a little shaking in the churches." And as 'tis evident that Dr. C's notion of charity was, to have a good opinion of the ministers and churches, as they stood; so because the instruments and subjects of that work, had not such an opinion of them; therefore he judges of them as enthusiasts, quakers, and what not? See Rom. 2. Ma­ny ministers will not approve of this conduct in Dr. Chauncy, who yet treat us ashe did them. Let us come to plain facts.

The first of our separate churches was at Canterbury; and the separation began in this manner. The parish cal­led a man to preach to them, who had been licenced for that purpose, by the association in that county. But after the church in Canterbury had made trial of him, they judged him to be ‘destitute of those essential qualifications that ought to be in a minister of Jesus Christ; and there­fore refused to join with the society in their choice.’ And, as the society persisted in their choice, and were justified therein by the ministers, the church at length withdrew, and met at a private house. After which the consociation was called; and under their direction, a number of the members openly renounced the former principles of the church, and put themselves under Saybrook regulation, and chose Mr. Cogswell, whom the society had called before, and got him ordained as their minister. And they afterward, ‘sent some of the members of the church to prison, for not attending on his ministry; yea, and threatned to prosecute Mr. Buell for staying in the town to preach the gospel, upon the desire of many members of the church, without the vote of the society.’ ^†

These and many other facts, Mr. Solomon Paine publi­shed 16 years ago, and appealed to courts, ministers and people for the truth of them; and I never heard any deny them to this day. Here reader is the plain state of our [Page 39] first separate church. It is the first church in Canterbury, who retain their ancient principles, their records, and other furniture of the church: and are called separate, only be­cause they refused to give up their judgments to the clergy and the world, ^* in so important an affair, as the choice of a guide for their souls. Indeed that association in their letter against the separates, p. 41, 42. say, ‘If there be any of us, whose ministry is not edifying, or who dispense not the word as we ought,—you ought to use the means which Christ has appointed for our conviction and amend­ment, or rejection.’ And they declare the churches have liberty ‘to choose their own way of church discipline, whe­ther Saybrook platform, presbyterian or congregational.’ And yet in the next breath they accuse the separates with ‘rejecting the ministry and churches of Christ, and set­ting up without any divine institution.’ Whereas, the very act of this church, which they are condemned for, was adhering to the congregational plan, and taking the only gospel way they had left to clear themselves of a minister, whose preaching was not edifying to them.

I say the only gospel method they had left; for the church had called a congregational council before, and after he was ordained ‘against the vote and solemn warnings and intreaties of the church;—all the settled ministers of the county left the church’: —and Mr. Pain ‘went to the general assembly in behalf of the church, with a petition, shewing them that the church was usurped o­ver, and oppressed, and prayed them to interpose, and forbid the society’, oppressing the church to support that minister: but the court granted them no relief. No, but for many years afterward, their goods were spoiled, [...] persons haled to prison for that minister's support; and after their own pastor was ordained, he was prosecuted, and fined for marrying a couple, because they would not allow him to be truly ordained.

Mr. Fish says, the qualifications of teachers, ‘are to be judged of by the ministers of Christ;—which trial lay-teachers refuse to submit to.’ p. 147. and quotes several texts out of Timothy and Titus to prove it: whereas those epistles are to direct ministers concerning their behavior in the church, not over it. Our Lord commends the church of Ephesus, that they had tried them which said they were ^† [Page 40] apostles, and were not: and had found them liars, Rev. 2.2. And the true apostles, while they gave to the first gospel chruch, a description of what sort of men should be chosen into office in their presence, they did not pretend to nomi­nate any; but said, Brethren, look ye out among you, such men. Act. 6.3. And Paul expressly shews, that letters of commendation in his time were TO and FROM THE CHURCH, 2 Cor. 3.1.

But these ministers now, arrogate the power to try, and approbate ministers, wholly to themselves; and assisted in causing a division in the church of Canterbury, because they would not submit to that power, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned, in the gospel. Here therefore, the text which they often cast upon us, is strictly applicable to them. ‘Mark them which cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID them: for they that are such, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches DECEIVE the hearts of the simple.’ Rom. 16.17.18. They were as truly the cause of that division, as ever King Charles was, of beginning the civil war by invading the rights of the Parliament.

There was an early dispute among the apostles about greatness: but their master told them that if any man de­sired to be first, the same should be last of all, and servant of all. Whereupon John discovered how their ambition had operated: it had moved them to forbid one who was acting in Christ's name, because, says he, he followeth not us. Mar. 9.35 — 38. Yet what now is the import of their noise against separates, but this, They follow not us? Our Lord repeatedly warned his disciples against assuming such a lordly power as civil rulers have, and said. So shall it NOT BE among you. Mar. 10.43. Luk. 22.26. And Peter exhorted elders not to be as lords overGod's heritage. 1 Pet. 5.3. But one of Mr. Fish's brethren, in the same county. ^* who is a trustee of Yale college, asserts that the ‘Rights conveyed by the keys,— belonging to the elder­ship only, are as distinct from the right of private members, as the rights of a magistrate are from those of a freeman, in a civil community.’ And adds that, the express charge given them, ‘not to lord it over God's heritage, suppo­seth them to have such rights and powers above, over and distinct from, and independent of the church.’ Which assertions he would support with this notable ar­gument, [Page 41] viz. ‘'Tis not possible they should be in danger of abusing a power, they never had.’ ^* To which I answer, that▪ if they can't abuse a power they never had; yet the experience of all ages proves, that they are prone to assume a power which Christ never granted: yea, which he has expressly forbid. If ministers would leave their worldly comparisons, and attend only to divine rule, I believe they would find that it belongs to the church with them to try ministers; and common people have the best advantage to know how men behave in their daily walk, and have as good right as any, to judge what gifts are edifying, and what experiences are clear. What then are those ministers doing, who assume the power to themselves to judge for the church, and to sorbid all who follow not them? Indeed there is one qualification that is greatly set by, which com­mon people are supposed not to be fit judges of. This bring [...] me to speak,

II. Of Learning.

UPON this Mr. F. advances a formal charge a­gainst us, and says ‘While we give the separates credit for this verbal concession, that learn­ing is a good thing, and that they don't de­spise learning, we must charge them with saying, in the next breath and confirming of it by practice, that there is no need of any more than common learning (nor indeed any necessity for that, if they have but the Spirit) to qualify men for the work of the ministry. And accord­ingly they choose unlearned men, and have none but such for their teachers. Neither do they use the means for obtaining any better accomplishments: which show [...] that they make no account of colleges, and superior schools of learning to educate their sons.’ p. 165.

This you see is laid against us all without exception, and he often repeats it in that manner, and our practice is ap­pealed to for the proof of the charge: then let that be examined.

[Page 42]Mr. Elisha Pain of Canterbury, was one of the greatest lawyers in that colony, before he left the law for the gos­pel; and some of the ministers approved of his preaching, 'till they found he would not conform to their schemes: he is an ordain'd pastor among the separates to this day. His brother Solomon, who was the first pastor of that church at Canterbury, had been a leading man in the town, and had been their representative in the general court. Mr. Josiah Cleaveland, of that church sent two of his sons to college, and you shall hear how they were treated.

"Yale college Nov. 19. 1744.

‘Present, the Rector and Tutors upon information, that John Cleaveland, and Ebenezer Cleaveland, members of this college, withdrew from the public worship of God in the meeting house in Canterbury, carried on by Mr. C [...]gsha [...]l a l [...]cenced, and approved candidate for the ministry, preaching there at the desire of the first parish or society in Canterbury, with the special direction of the association of the county of Windham; and that they the said Cleavelands, did go to and attend upon a private saparate meeeting in a private house for divine worship, car­ried on principally by one Solomon Paine, a lay-exhorter, on several sabbaths in September or October last.’ The Scho­lars owned the facts, and gave in the state of the case to them, and shew'd that they met with the major part of the church, which they belonged to. I shall not trouble the reader with any more than the close of their first answer which was, ‘That neither the major part of the members in full communi­on, nor any other persons in any parish or society, have any right or warrant to appoint any house or place for [Page 43] worship on the sabbath, distinct and separate from, and in opposition to the meeting-house, the public place ap­pointed by the general assembly, and the parish; but on the contrary, all such places and separate meetings, are prohibited by the antient laws of this government.’

‘Whereupon it is considered, and adjudged by the rector and tutors, that the said John and Ebenezer Cleavelands, in withdrawing and separating from the public worship of God, and attending upon the preach­ing of lay-exhorters as aforesaid, have acted contrary to the rules of the gospel, the laws of this colony, and of the college; and that the said Cleavelands, shall be publickly admonished for their faults aforesaid; and if they continue to justify themselves, and refuse to make an acknowledgment, they shall be expelled.’

They were expelled accordingly, and became teachers among the separates. And as the heads of the college then published this account; and Mr. Paine in his view of the churches, transcribed it, p. 13— 15, in 1752. And as we have some other ordained pastors, who have considerable skill in both the Greek and Latin tongues; and three mem­bers of one separate church in Norwich, have each brought up a son at college within these few years, one of which is now a tutor of Yale college; and as a like number have been sent to college from Windham, beside some in other places; I leave Mr. Fish to consider how he can answer what he has said, either to God or man.

However, tho' his charge is far from truth, yet 'tis readi­ly granted, that we have a great dislike to some sorts of learn­ing, especially the art of disputing against the truth, as well as for it, the art of making easy things hard, instead of making hard things easy; such oppositions of science, we ^* have no likening to, nor of the art of handling the word of God deceitfully, and twisting things into any shape to suit men's own turns. Such things as these, I take to be the leaven which our Savior warned his disciples against; for what he calls doctrine in one place, he calls hypocrisy in another. ^† And what shall we think of our author upon this point? Speaking of ministers work, he says, ‘Our Lord hath shewn us, that LEARNING is eminently useful, yea even necessa­ry, Isai. 50.4. The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word [Page 44] in season, to him that is weary. Intimating that he should not have known how, without a learned tongue.’ p. 175.

When I read this, I confess it caused this enquiry in my mind, If Mr. Fish knows no better, than to construe this scripture so, where is his learning? and if he does, where is his honesty? His controversy with us is about human learn­ing, whereas that text expresseth divine learning, as plain as words can possibly do; and there is great reason to think, that the prophet here personates HIM, who tho' he were a son, yet learned he obedience, by the things which he suffered, and being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempt­ed. Did any Pharisee ever abuse scripture, to impose upon people, worse than this?

Let us consider another scripture, namely, 2 Tim. 3.6. which our author gives us a large comment upon, in order to guard against those that oppose their churches, and clo­seth it by saying, ‘This design is hid from vulgar eyes, by the plausible covering or pretence, of setting truth in a clearer light, and building up the church on a better footing, and of purer materials,’ p. 70. Now we may take notice, that the apostle makes no distinction in the text, between public and private houses, for he often taught both publickly and from house to house; but what he points out false teachers by, is, the manner of their getting in, and the work they do when they are in. As to the first, they creep into houses: and we all know that creeping is oppo­site to going upright, therefore when Peter dissembled, Paul withstood him to the face, because he walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel; and that concerning introducing the Jewish schemes into the christian church, Gal. 2.11 — 14. I leave Mr. F. to consider how well this will agree with his notion, that the ‘christian church is made up of the same materials, that the Jewish church was.’

I remember that Mr. Edwards in his farewell sermon at Northampton, warned that people of their danger of being imposed upon, for he said, he knew the art that some young ministers had got, of disguising their principles, 'till they could get into place, and then they would corrupt people's minds by degrees. This leads to the other branch of the text under consideration, which is, that when those teachers are got into houses, they lead captive silly women laden with sin, led away with divers lusts. And how many have there been in our day, who have appeared in a Cal­vinist garb till they have got settled, and then as fast as [Page 45] any women or others came laden with sin, to talk with them about their souls concern, they would lead them to the church, instead of leading them to Christ first, and so they are settled down in a form of Godliness; and this sort of men, will soon deny the power of it. verse. 5. And they are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, v. 7. Instead of that, they are truce-breakers; false to the principles which they professed, and break thro' their solemnities and engagements; and so are Traitors, v. 4. And if we had no such men in our land, can it be thought, that we should have heard Judas cried up so much as we have? I mean not to reflect upon any man's person, but only to hold up the plain truth, and leave all men to judge for themselves; and where any such men are found, God's command in ver. 5. is, From such turn away. Mr. F. pretends, that those teachers were for building the church, "of purer materials" than others; whereas the text speaks expressly of that sort of men, who have the form, but deny the power of godliness.

This leads us to another article of difference between us, which is,

III. The Nature and Power of the Spirit.

OUR author's last and most distinguishing cha­racter of the true church is, that, ‘Christ's church has always had, and always will have, his holy spirit dwelling in it.’ p. 44. This spirit he says, ‘has always been distinguish­ed from the spirit of antichrist, by his purity, meekness, gentleness, and patience. The true church of Christ, in whom his spirit dwells, has never been a bitter, fierce, revengeful, persecuting church, but the reverse.’ What­ever ‘degree of such a spirit, has at any time crept into his church, so far as to influence some individuals, it has ever been a blemish to her character,—been disowned by Christ and his church, condemned and exploded.’ p. 47. To this I say, amen with all my heart; by this let the controversy be decided; in order to which, other facts must be laid open.

It has been already observed, that we agree in judgment, concerning there having been a most glorious out-pouring of the spirit in our day, for the conviction and conversion of ma­ny souls: but I think the same spirit led us to see the cor­ruptions [Page 46] of the ministers and churches, so as to leave them, while Mr. F. holds the contrary. Here we part, and I have laid open the state of our first separate church, and a little of the treatment they met with, from the other par­ty. Now we will proceed further. Tho' we had diverse separate meetings, yet 'twas more than a year after the breach at Canterbury, before we had any new church ga­thered, and many were in hopes that ministers would come to better terms, but their hopes were disappointed, for none were allowed to preach, without the ministers licence; and I will here insert their own account, how one of our teachers was treated, by the authority which these churches stand upon, and leave others to judge what spirit it disco­vered. Omitting the introduction, the charge was, ^* ‘That Elisha Paine of Canterbury, in the county of Windham, who is not a settled, and ordained minister, did on the 10th day of April, A. D. 1744. go into the third parish in Windham, in the county aforesaid; and in said parish, in the house of Benjamin Cleaveland, there said Paine did publickly preach, and exhort in matters of religion, both as to doctrine and practice, to a great number of people then present, that were notified many days before the said Paine was to preach at said Cleave­land's house, as before mentioned, as by presentment on file may appear. The said Paine confessed the facts, and pleaded, this court hath no jurisdiction of this case, as on file.’ ^†

‘This court having considered the pleas of the priso­ner, do judge them insufficient, and say, That this court hath jurisdiction of this case, and the said Paine refused to make any other plea: whereupon it is con­sidered by this court, that the said Elisha Paine shall become bound, to the treasurer of the county of Wind­ham; [Page 47] in a recognizance of one hundred pound lawful money, to his peaceable and good behavior; that he the said Paine, will not again offend in the like kind, between this time, and the sitting of the county court, to be holden at Windham, in and for the county of Wind­ham, on the second Tuesday of December next, and then appear at said court, on said day, and take up his bond, unless the court shall see cause to continue the same, and pay cost of this prosecution, and stand committed until bond is given. Cost allowed, two pounds thirteen shillings, old tenor bills. The said Paine refused to give bond as above-mentioned, or any ways to comply with the judgment, and was committed the day and year above-written.’

I shall only just desire the reader to observe, that there appears nothing wanting here, to make him a good preacher, but only the ministers licence, for he preach'd and exhored, both in a doctrinal and practical way; and who could think that such treatment from the other parties, could convince us that we were wrong, and they right? It was far from doing it; but on the other hand, it convinced us that they had turn'd so far out of the gospel line, that we ought not to follow them.

And on Oct. 9. 1745. A new separate church in Mans­field was gathered, and they made choice of Mr. Thomas Marsh for their pastor, who had for many years been a deacon in the second church in Windham; and they ap­pointed his ordination to be on Jan. 6. 1746. But the day before, many of the standing ministers met in that town, and at the same time Mr. Marsh was seized by an officer, and carried to Windham Goal, for preaching some­time before, without licence from the ministers; and on the day proposed for his ordination, as a great assembly were engag'd in religious worship, there came up a dozen or fourteen ministers, and desired a conference with this new church; hoping likely that now the shepherd was ta­ken, they might scatter the sheep. What they talked of, was to try to convince them of their errors; but when they had begun with that old argument, "Take him Goaler!" that powerful argument upon the body; what free access could they rationally expect after that, to convince the mind? They complained afterward, of meeting with noisy treatment, and who could expect less?

[Page 48]The writer of this, happened to be a spectator of the transactions of that day, and tho' but young in years, and experience, yet he endeavoured carefully to observe what was done. Some of those ministers had been as great promoters, and others as great opposers of the late revival of religion, as any in the land: and the promoters of the work were put forward, and as they came up, they were saluted something in this manner, viz. one would say, ‘Dear Mr. P. you was the instrument of my conversion, and where are you now?’ Another, ‘Dear Mr. M. you was the means of awakenings my soul, and will you now fight against the work of God,’ and others to like purpose. And afterward they were publickly addressed by one of the fathers in the separation, ^* as hear as I can remember, in these words, ‘You dear ministers of Jesus Christ, who were as heralds a few years ago, to found the gospel trumpet thro' the land, where are you now? are you not joined in confederacy with those who, your own consciences testify, are enemies to the work of God?’

They shewed no disposition to answer such questions, but made several attempts to get the church together by themselves, 'till they found it could not be done, and at last they read off a remonstrance, which they had drawn up against these things, and so departed. That church in Mansfield, the next month, chose and ordained Mr. John Hovey for their pastor, which was the first ordina­tion among these churches; and after Mr. Marsh was set at liberty, he was ordained a colleague with him, in July following. The third separate ordination, was of Mr. Solomon Pa [...] at Canterbury, Sept. 10. 1746. and there were fi [...]e more such ordinations before that year was out, one of which was near Mr. F. at Stonington; and he gives a long story of his own behavior, and of the treatment he met with, upon that occasion; in order to shew how bad the spirit of separation was, p. 156. &c.

I would always abide by what we begun upon, under this head, that the spirit of Christ is not a fierce, bitter, and revengeful spirit, but the reverse; and that wherever such a spirit appears, 'tis a blemish to any people; and that treatment which he describes was so to us; but then he, and all ought to consider, that Solomon says, surely oppression maketh a wise man mad; and if what we had met with was not oppression, I confess I know not what may be called so; and the bitter words which he sets down, were utter­ed [Page 49] by a poor Irishman, who could not read, and was never set up as a teacher among our churches, but put himself forward at that time; and if others did not, then rebuke him for it, what has been said above, may in some mea­sure account for that.

Mr. F. owns, that there is a great alteration among us since, and says, ‘Tis readily granted that they are, now much more moderate and civil, than they were in that day, — are very peaceable, kind, obliging good neigh­bours.’ But, says he, ‘what does this reasoning argue? why, it only shews that they have lost a degree of their original spirit as separates.’ p. 158. But stay; our author has forgot himself: As little learning as we have, we used to think, that we understood so much of logic as this, that if the cause was gone, the effect would cease: therefore if so great a degree of the spirit of separation is lost, he need not have troubled himself, nor others about it. But he has drawn out things, to such a length, that he will have hard, work to bring his two ends together [...] for he begins with informing the world, that the occasion of his writing, ws the revival of the spirit of separation, yet before he has got thro' his book, he contradicts it, lest he should allow that we were governed by a good spi­rit in separating.

He calls this labour of his, An "unpleasant task"; and well he might, for 'tis hard work to strive to blind the truth. In order to finish this task, he says; ‘The rash­ness and soverity of that spirit, which these poor bre­thren were influenced by, appeared in such accusations, as respected the hidden man of the heart,’ p. 159.

This brings me to speak,

IV. Of knowing Christians.

WHEN we first appeared against, having the wor­thy, and the unworthy partake together at the Lord's supper, (which was a principal reason of our fathers separation from the Church of England) ministers told us, as I have before proved, that tares and wheat must grow together in the church, 'till the harvest: for they knew there were many both in pub­lic and private stations, who, notwithstanding their form of godliness, appeared as plainly against the power of it, as the tares appeared by their fruits in the field. But [Page 50] because we would not confound church and world toge­ther, as they did, they shifted about, and accused us with assuming God's prerogative to search the heart; while they asserted, that we could not know who were saints, and who not. And when 'twas reply'd, that Christ said, ye shall know them: the return would often be, What, are you infallible? Whereupon disputes have ensued, which have often been carried to extremes on both hands. I con­fess with shame that I have sometimes been thus insnared, and so have given occasion to those who desired occasion against us.

And doubtless confidence has been carried beyond evi­dence, in many instances; and I suppose many have been more concerned to keep up a good opinion of such as they have received for christians, than they have to discharge their duty towards them in a gospel manner. And who will say he is clear of fault in these things? May all strive for greater reformation in them. But what is this writer doing, when he often charges us with wilfulness in our way? and because we were not turned back by Mr. Davenport's retractions he says; ‘They held fast deceit, they refused to return.’ p. 128. Again, he says, ‘The strength of their delusion seems to lies very much in this, that they cannot call their conduct in question.’ p. 186. This is the man who accuseth separates, with judging others hearts! See Rom. 3.1 —3.

Mr. F. knows that our chief disputes, have been upon [...] ­sibilities and not secrets. The first thing which he advances, to prove that separates had a bad spirit, is that, ‘They en­deavoured to draw off from us, every true believer, or christian, (in their sense of the word) and would have left a congregation behind them, of nothing but such as they judged to be hypocrites and graceless persons: without the benefit of one saint to assist them, in the affairs of their souls.’

And he directly turns to the parable of the tares, as a sure proof that this was wrong; and adds, as a great agra­vation of their crime, that they would call others to, ‘Come out from among them, and be separate; with this re­flection,’ ‘If they are christians, why don't they come away from the Shades of Babylon!’ p. 154. I sup­pose the use of the word Babylon here, was thought as cri­minal as any of their language; but as its signification is, confusion or mixture, is there not at least the shades of it, where civil and ecclesiastical affairs; church and world are [Page 51] confounded together, as we have proved they are in our land? and the text refer'd to, is a call to come out from, and not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Cor. 6.14—17. Creatures that are unequally yoked together, are not like to work to any advantage.

Old Mr. Mitchel's thoughts are worthy of ^* notice here, which were thus expressed; ‘The over-enlarging of full communion of, or admission of persons there, upon slight qualifications, without insisting upon the practical and spiritual part of religion, will not only lose the power of godliness, but in [...]e time, bring in profaneness, and ruin the churches these two ways. 1. Election of ministers, will soon be carried by a formal, looser so [...]t. 2. The exercise of discipline, will by this means be rende­red impossible, discipline falling, profaneness riseth like a flood; for the major part wanting zeal against sin, will foster licentiousness. It is not setting down good rules, and directions, that will salve it; for the specification of government, is from men, not from laws. Let ne­ver so good a form of government be agreed upon, it will soon degenerate, if the instruments, (or men) that manage it, be not good.’ Solomon tells us that words fitly spoken, are like apples of gold, in pictures of silver ▪ and I think these words of Mr. Mitchel are such; and [...] Mr. Fish often refers us to this godly man; I would de­sire him to turn and look into this glass himself. If this great man thought, that it would ruin the churches, to have many loose members to vote for ministers in the church; what would he have said, if he had seen the clergy set up the world over the church in that affair? as we have seen them do, which caused the first separation. I say set up the world over the church; for the law requires no other qualification to make a man a voter for a minister in their parishes, but a certain quantity of worldly estate: and such voters turned the church in Canterbury out of the mee­ting-house; and then two members of it, because they would go with the church, without the camp of such men, they were turned out of one of the fountains, which Mr. F. would confine us all to for ministers. This is not a judging men's secrets, for they are open facts in the sight of the sun. But what a spirit does our author discover, in his reproaching and condemning us, as apostates from the sentiments of our antient fathers? He spends several pages to try to prove, that the antient church at Plymouth was [Page 52] like the standing church now, and not like the separates, from an account of that church, which is given in the appen­dix to Mr. Robbins's ordination sermon; and after picking out a few passages, which are chiefly the opinion of the writer of the account, now in the year 1760, he then re­fers it to the reader to judge how little resemblance there is between them and us, p. 84. But in that same ac­count, p. 32. we are informed, that the ‘church mana­ged the whole affair, both of inviting and calling’ mini­sters, and that the first instance that appears of the towns voting in the case, was seventy nine years after their first coming to Plymouth. In the same account p. 21. we have an information of three members of that church, who were ordained to the pastoral care of other churches ^* that were, what Mr. F. calls lay-teachers; yet this was done fifty-six years after Harvard college was founded.

We don't pretend to take those fathers as our perfect pattern; but what I complain of is, Mr. Fish's pretending to produce their example to support his cause, and to con­demn us, and then call others to judge upon the case; while he conceals these material points, which are for us, and against him. I will also add here, that Mr. Prince gives it as the foundation principles of those fathers which came to Plymouth, that their church officers after ‘being chosen and ordained, have no lordly, arbitrary or impos­ing power; but can only rule and minister with the con­sent of the brethren; who ought not in contempt to be called the la [...]ty but to be treated as men and brethren in Christ, not as slaves or minors. And that no churches or church officers whatever have any power over any other, church or officers, to controul or impose upon them: but are equal in their rights and privileges, and ought to be independent in the exercise and enjoyments of them.’ ^† Yet now these men who pretend to be their successors, have got so high an opinion of their own learn­ing and knowledge, as to assume such a power as our fa­thers abhorred.

Is not he a servant who has not liberty to act as he thinks best, without leave from another? Yet such a power is [Page 53] now claim'd by ministers over their people, as not to allow them to have liberty to ask any minister to preach in their parish without their leave; and nothing is more common, than for them to call all such, lay men, which are not intro­duced into the ministry in their way. Our author is abun­dant in it, and Mr. Beckwith, who as I observed a little back, claims a lordly power in plain words, he uses the lay-terms about 30 times in thirty pages. ^* And is not he a mi­nor, who must have another to act for him, and he only yield a silent consent thereto? and how near to this is the custom of our land, concerning admissions into churches? I observed before, that I never knew a single instance in the standing churches, of any members being received up­on a verbal declaration to the church, of what God hath done for his soul; no, instead of that, the ministers have assumed more to themselves in that respect, than the judges do in our civil courts; for there they ordinarily insist upon having the witnesses personally present, where all persons concerned, may hear their testimony from their own mouths, and have liberty to ask what questions they think proper; the fear of witnesses blundering in their story, shall not ex­cuse them from giving their own account, even before great [Page 54] men; for interest is concerned, and they are afraid, writ­ten evidences would impose upon them: Yet in this case, where the interest of Christ's church is so much concerned, that as Mr. Mitchel observes loose admissions will ruin the churches; here none are allowed to witness a good confessi­on with their own mouths before the church, but the mini­sters have turned them off with written accounts, which have often been framed by some body else, for those who are about to make an open appearance as God's wit­nesses. Nay there are some godly persons among us, who declare that when they were admitted publickly into the church, the minister read off an account, different in mate­rial points, from what they gave to him in writing, and so made them silently assent to a lie!

From written experiences, great numbers, especially in populous places, have now dropt giving any account there­of to the church in any way: and yet these ministers would fain make us believe they are going in the same way which our fathers set out in, when they first came to this country: but let us hear their own testimony in the affair.

Capt. Roger Clap, one of the first inhabitants of Dor­chester, and who was many years captain of the castle in Boston harbour; he in writing of what they went thro' says, ‘I took notice of it, as a great favour of God unto me, not only to preserve my life, but to give me content­edness in all these straits? insomuch that I do not re­member that ever I did wish in my heart, that I had not come into this country.—The Lord Jesus Christ was so plainly held out in the preaching of the gospel unto poor lost sinners, and the absolute necessity of the new-birth, and God's holy spirit in those days, was pleased to accompany the word with such efficacy upon the hearts of many; that our hearts were taken off from old England, and set upon heaven.—Many were converted, and others established in believing, many joined unto the several churches where they lived, confessing their faith publickly, and shewing before all the assembly their expe­riences of the workings of God's spirit in their hearts to bring them to Christ; which many hearers found very much good by, to help them to try their own hearts, and to consider how it was with them;—oh the many tears that have been shed in Dorchester meeting-house at such times, both by those that have declared God's work on their souls, and also by those that heard them. In those days, God, even our own God did bless New-England.’ [Page 55] Christian history Vol. I. p. 72. You may take notice that this was their practice in the several chur­ches where people lived.

Accordingly old Mr. John Eliot of Ro [...]bury said, ‘It is matter of great thankfulness, that we have Christ con­fessed in our churches; by such as we receive to full communion there. They open the work of Christ in their hearts, and the relation thereof is an eminent con­fession of our Lord; experienced saints, can gather more than a little from it. It is indeed an ordinance of won­derful benefit; the Lord planted many vineyards in the first settlement of this country, and there were many noble vines in them; it was their heavenly-mindedness which disposed them to this exercise, and by the up­holding of it, the churches are still filled with noble vines; it mightily maintains PURITY of churches: 'tis the duty of EVERY Christian. It is a thing that gives great glory to the Lord Jesus Christ; and young converts are thereby exceedingly edified; and the souls of devout christians are hereby ingratiated one unto another. The devil knows what he does when he thrusts so hard to get this custom out of our churches. For my part, I would say in this case, get thee behind me satan; thou givest an horrible offence unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us keep up this ordinance with all gentleness; and where we see the least spark of grace held forth, let us prize it more than all the wit in the world.’ ^* This was the testimony of one of the most faithful and successful ministers that New-England ever saw; wherein he boldly ascribes to the devil any attempts that were made to thrust that custom out of the churches: yet now that custom is treated with contempt by many ministers, who still would be accounted the true successors of those pious fathers.

Indeed our author has got a fine way to get along here, which is by turning off such things for imperfections, and he says the order of the churches ‘was more perfected and established afterwards in the year 1662.’ p. 80. Here we shall learn what his notion of perfection is; for in that year was the synod which brought in (what we have called) half way members. Mr. Chauncy president of the college, and Mr. Davenport of New-Haven, both opposed that point in print, as a great corruption instead of perfection; and Mr. Eleazer Mather of Northampton, [Page 56] who was in that synod, wrote soon after to Mr. Davenport that ‘There was scarce any of the congregational princi­ples but what were layen at by some of other of the assembly; as relations of the work of grace, power of voting of the fraternity (or brethren) in admissi­on,’ &c. ^*

Mr. F's. notion of the order of the churches being per­fected then, makes me think of a story concerning a minister who descended from a member of that synod, who tho' his conduct was not good, yet boasted of treading in his grand­fathers steps; whereupon another minister of greater note said, ‘He had got his grandfathers imperfections to per­fection.’ Though Mr. Mitchel was then active in bringing in what he called the middle-way; Yet the im­portance of being careful how persons were admitted to the Lord's-supper, still lay upon his mind, and he wrote his tho'ts thereon on Jan. 4. 1664. Wherein, among other things, he brings in this objection, viz. Why may it not ‘suffice, for a man publickly to say, I believe on Christ, or do unfeignedly repent of my sins? Or to consent to such expressions being read, or propounded unto him, without any more adoe?’ His answer is ‘1st. He that can groundedly so say, or profess before God, angels and men that he hath unfeigned faith and repentance, can say somewhat more, particularly to shew the reality of his acquaintance with those things. And if he can­not say it, groundedly, it is not meet to put him so to say, 2^d. He that either cannot or will not say any more than so, he renders the truth of his faith and repentance, sus­picious so that a rational charity, cannot acquiesce in it.’ ^†

There has been a great deal of smother raised in our day to hide or get over these self evident truths, many have been for lowering the profession so that it might not imply saving faith in it; but Zion's king says He that is not for me is against me; and he declares that publicans and har­lots go into the kingdom of God before those who said, I go sir; and went not. Halting between two opinions; a pretending to be for God, and yet not being truly so, has always been one of the greatest evils, and most fatal snares that any men can be taken in. And as to the noise which many have made against our principles as tho' they tended [Page 57] to perplex sincere minds; this argument has justly been retorted back again: for none will pretend to admit per­sons without some sort of qualification or other: and 'tis vastly more difficult to determine the point concerning mo­ral sincerity, than gracious sincerity; for the first is only restraints and influences upon a person, while the other is a living principle within him; and I think this is an unanswer­able reason which Mr. Edwards gives, why the latter, and not the other, makes meet members for Christ's Church, namely that moral sincerity is transient, and may be intire­ly lost; but a gracious principle abides for ever. As to the frightful consequence which some draw, that if none but gracious persons ought to be received to communion, then we can never know whether our communion is right or not, in this world: Old Mr. Shephard gave a sufficient answer thereto an 120 years ago, in these words.

"Q. What members ought every particular visible church "to consist of?

‘A. Christ being head of every particular church, and it his body, hence none are to be members of the church, but such as are members of Christ by faith, 1 Cor. 1.2. 1 Thes. 1.’

"Q. But do not hypocrites, and no true members of Christ "creep in?

‘A. Yes: But if they could have been known to be such they ought to be kept out; and when they are known, they are orderly to be cast out. Mat. 25.1. 2 Tim. 3.5. Rev. 2.20. Tit. 3.10.’ ^*

I have been the more particular on this head, because all the controversy turns very much upon it, and since Mr. F. says the separates ‘admitted members not so much upon outward evidence, as upon inward fellowship or feel­ing.’ p. 145. I will add a little more concerning that matter: and I doubt not but many have had confused notions concerning fellowship, and have often put the effect for the cause, i. e. have taken what they felt towards other, for the evidence of others good estate; whereas all affections toward others, are caused by what is some way or other manifested from them; and if what others mani­fest be genuine evidences of grace, then our love thereto is genuine; but if what others manifest is not genuine lan­guage or exercises, and we are delighted therewith, those af­fections in us are as corrupt as the causes which produced them: hence Jesus says, First cast out the beam out of thine [Page 58] own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the m [...]t [...] out of thy brothers eye. And tho' the word, feeling is often cast upon us as a term of roproach, yet as certain as the bible is true, all those professors that don't love one another with a pure heart, have but the dead carcase of religion. And as a principal means of begetting and increasing this love, is declaring to each other what God has done for our souls; so our Lord says, Every tree is known by his own fruit,—a good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: And the beloved disciple says, That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, &c. And to shew that our sentiments are not singular, as well as for the edification of the saints, I will here transcribe a little of what was wrote in the last century, by one who is allow'd to be a man of as great learning and piety as any in his day.

I mean Dr. John Owen, who, after observing how men are liable to mistakes in various ways, and giving cautions accordingly, he proceeds to speak of some duties which can't be performed without some knowledge of others state, and also of the way wherein it is attained," 1st. There are, says he, ‘many duties incumbent on us to be performed, with and towards professors, which without admitting a judgment to be made of their state and con­dition, cannot be performed in faith. And in reference unto these duties alone, it is that we are called to judge the state of others. For we are not giving countenance unto a rash uncharitable censuring of mens spiritual conditions, nor unto any judging of any men, any other than what our own duty towards them doth in­dispensably require. Thus if we are to lay down our lives for the brethren, it is very meet that we should so far know them so to be, as that we may hazard our lives in faith when we are called thereunto. We are also to join with them in those ordinances wherein we make a solemn profession, that we are members of the same body with them, that we have the same head, the same faith and love: we must love them because they are begotten of God, children of our heavenly fa­ther; and therefore must on some good ground believe them so to be. In a word, the due performance of all principal mutual gospel duties, to the glory of God, and our own edification, depend upon this supposition, that we may have such satisfying persuasion concerning the [Page 59] spiritual condition of others, as that from which we may take our aim in what we do.’

‘2. For the grounds hereof, I shall mention one only, which all others do lean upon. This is pressed, 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. As the body is one, and hath many mem­bers, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so is Christ: for by one spirit we are all bapti­zed into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been made all to drink into one spirit. They are all united unto, and hold of one head; so is Christ mystical, that is, all believers under Christ their head. And this union they have by the inhabi­tation of the same quickning Spirit, which is in Christ their head, and by him they are all brought into the same spiritual state and frame; they are made to drink into one and the same spirit; for this same spirit pro­duceth the same effects in them all, the same in kind tho' differing in degrees, as the apostle fully declares. Eph. 4.3—6. And this spirit is in them and not in the world, Joh. 16. And as it gives them a naturalness in their duties one towards another, or in mutual caring for, rejoicing and sorrowing with one another as mem­bers one of another. 1 Cor. 12.25, 26. So that it reveals and discovers them to each other, so far as is neccessary for the performance of the duties mentioned, in such a manner as becomes members of the same body. There is on this account a spiritually natural answering of one to another, as face answereth face in the water, they can see and discern that in others whereof they have expe­rience in themselves, they taste and relish that in others which they feed upon in themselves, and wherein the lives of their souls do consist; the same spirit of life be­ing in them, they have the same spiritual taste and fa­vor. And unless their palates are distempered by temp­tation or false opinion or prejudices, they can in their communion taste of that spirit in each other, which they are all made to drink into. This gives them the same likeness and image in the inward man, the same heavenly light in their minds, the same affections; and being thus prepared to judge and discern of the states of each other, in reference unto their mutual duties, they have moreover the true rule of the word to judge of all spirits and spiritual effects by. And this is the ground of all that love without dissimulation, and real communion [Page 60] that is among the saints of God in this world. If these are omitted, there is an end of all profitable use of church-society. Churches without this, are but mere husks and shells of churches, carcases without souls; for as there is no real union unto Christ without faith, so there is no real union among the members of any church without love, and that acting itself in all the duties mentioned, let not this ordinance be in vain.’ ^*

These were the sentiments of those antient fathers, who were in contempt called Puritans, because they labored to have the church brought to the pure standard of God's word; yet how are poor creatures treated now, for their at­tempting, (tho' very imperfectly) to repair the old wastes, the desolations of many generations? Isa. 6.4. We come,

V. To speak of what Ministers Power real­ly is, and how they come by it.

WE have seen much already of what power they pretend to have; but 'tis needful to open what authority Christ has really given to his mini­sters. And the plain account in his word is,

1. That their authority is not over the bodies, but it concerns the souls of men. Obey them,—for they watch for your souls, Heb. 13.17. And, 2. They have no power to make rules, nor to govern others judgments, but only to explain the rules which are made, and labour to move others to regard them. Not for that we have do­minion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand, 2 Cor. 1.24. I speak as to wise men: JUDGE YE what I say. 1 Cor. 10.15. Hence, 3. The peoples obligation to regard and follow any teachers, de­pends upon their teaching right. We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor. 4.2. They who teach right, teach by practice as well as word. Paul says, Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which WALE so as ye have us for an ENSAMPLE: and he warns them against persons of a contrary walk, who mind earthly things, Phil. 3.17—19. Again he says, Remember them whic have [...] [Page 61] the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conver­sation, Heb. 13.7. Note, we are not to obey and follow them in an implicit, or customary way, but each one must consider, and follow others no further than they see that the [...]nd of their conversation is, Jesus Christ the same yester­day, and to day, and for evermore, v. 8. Yea, 4. People are so far from being under obligation to follow teachers, who don't lead in this way, that they incur guilt by such a following of them. The apostle John, speaking of the doctrine of Christ, says. If there come ANY unto you; and bring not THIS DOCTRINE, receive him not into your house, nor bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, is PARTAKER of his evil deeds, 2 John 10.11. And the great apostle of the gentiles says, Tho' we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, (and than, that ye have received) let him be accursed, Gal. 1.8, 9. And now, where is the power that is derived by a local succession from the apostles? And which many hold their authority from as ministers, and carry it so high as to forbid those who follow not them, even tho' the reason of it were a matter of conscience, be­cause they really believed that such ministers neither prea­ched nor practised agreeable to the gospel.

Paul was so far from establishing such a local power, that, to guard against all such pretences, he states the case upon the highest pitch of all creature authority, viz. a­postles and angels: and leaving all Peter's successors out of the question, he brings it up to the apostles themselves, and says, Tho' WE preach any other gospel than that ye have received; nay, if an angel directly from heaven should do so, let him he accursed. Our modern ministers would evade all this, by telling us that they don't pervert the gospel, and that 'tis our erroneous judgments, or perverse will, that makes us leave them; but Paul instead of assuming any such dominion over others faith, says, judge ye what I say; and he implicitly charges them to reject him if he should come to them with another gospel.

Should any object that this allowing every one a right to receive or reject ministers as they judge best, will bring ministers authority to nothing, and so destroy such an or­der of men out of the church:

I reply, that 'tis so far from it, that this is the only way to establish the gospel ministry, upon its right foundation: for as Christ's kingdom is not of this world, but its foun­dation [Page 62] and support is truth, and his ministers are furnished with that treasure ^* in their souls; so the manifestation thereof commends them to every man's conscience, beyond what all others approbation can do. This leads us to view how ministers come by their authority. When Zion's king ascended on high, he gave gifts to man; a special part whereof were, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. ^† And his command is, AS EVERY man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. ^‡ This natu­rally opens the way for their being received into office in the church, as gifts from her king. Peter told the hun­dred and twenty disciples, that of the men which had com­panied with them, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them, one must be ordained to be a witness with the apostles of his resurrection: accordingly they gave forth their lots; and thereby Matthias was put into that office. ^§ And after the apostles were endowed with extraordinary power from on high, to witness for Christ, ^‖ yet they did not so much as nominate the seven men, who were to be put into office in their presence, but said, Bre­thren, look ye eat among you seven men of honest report, full of the holy ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. They did accordingly, and set the men be­fore the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. Act. 6.3, 6. And in Acts 14.23. which speaks of ordain­ing elders in every church; many learned men assert, that the word which is translated, ordained, signifies the act of the church, declaring their choice of those elders, by stretch­ing out, or listing up the hands. ^* And when Paul had given to Timothy a particular description of the characters of those who are to be put into the office both of bishops and deacons, he declares plainly that his design therein was, that Timothy might know how he ought to behave himself, IN the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. Observe, he had no power over the church, but was to act as a leader in the church; and teach them what sort of men are to be chose into office, and assist in placing them therein. It is well [Page 63] known that the word elder in scripture, does not always mean persons in office, either in church or state; but often is used only for persons of superior gifts, age or experience; yea the name, when applied to officers, seems to derive its original, from the custom of chusing such persons into office; ^* and in this very epistle the word is plainly used in a sense, which does not distinguish those who are in office from others, 1 Tim. 5.1, 2.

Upon the whole, I can freely leave it with every con­science to judge, whether the scriptures carry the point a whit further than this, That leading men in the primitive church, led in ordinations as well as other things. And who will dispute that point with any body? Those who hold the power to ‘constitute in office, and to remove from office,’ to be intirely in the church, yet always ap­point leading men, (and such as are in office when they can be conveniently had) to act in and for the church, in ordinations. Much stress is laid by many, on the terms, commit thou, in 2 Tim. 2.2. in order to prove the power of ordination to be inherent in them, who are already in office; but it has been already proved, that the apostles themselves, (even tho' they sometimes conveyed extraordi­nary gifts by laying on their hands, yet) did not pretend to act in ordinations, only in consequence of the churches act; therefore they properly acted as the churches mouth, in putting men into office, and charging them to be faith­ful therein: and Timothy, and all other leaders, ought to be very careful when they are called to assist in ordinati­ons, to see that they commit the charge of souls, only to faithful men. Paul in writing to this same person, useth the same words, This charge I commit unto thee; and, I give thee charge, as synonymous terms, 1 Tim. 1.18. & 6.13. And be the right of ordination where it will, yet this is certain, that the direction is to commit the charge of souls to faithful men; and none but such can truly be in the gospel line; and when any creep in, under a sheeps cloath­ing, who are not truly such; when they discover by their fruits that they are false men, our Lord commands his peo­ple to beware of them, Mat. 7.14, 15.

Another text which is often advanced to prove that mi­nisterial power is handed down by an external line from [Page 64] the apostles, is Mat. 28.18,—20. But I think two things may be sufficient to evince the absurdity of construing that commission and promise in such a way.

1. All the promises of God, are IN Christ Jesus; and the heirs of promise are only such as have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us, 2 Cor. 1.20. Heb. 6.17, 18. How vain then must the attempt be, to apply that promise to any who have not fled to the gospel refuge?

2. Our Lord connects precept and promise together in the text, Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world: Therefore this promise is so far from supporting a succession of unconverted ministers, that it could not support even the apostles themselves, if they turn­ed aside from the line of truth; yea, instead of the promise, the curse would seize upon an apostle or angel, if they should turn off from the gospel way, as I have proved be­fore. Should any say, that those words of Paul are hypo­thetical expressions; i. e. supposing a case for illustration, which is not granted, for 'tis readily allowed, that they are so; but I would have people remember, that 'tis chiefly from such ways of speaking, that they draw their pleas for unconverted ministers, as from 1 Cor. 13.1—3. &c.

To shew that my opinion about a line of succession is not singular, I will transcribe some of Dr. Owen's thoughts thereon, which were published in London 1692. in a small piece called, "A guide to church-fellowship and order," wherein he says, p. 47, 48. ‘The office of the ministry, for the continuation of the church state, and administra­tion of all ordinances of worship unto the end of the world, is sufficiently secured, (1.) By the law, consti­tution and appointment of our Lord Jesus Christ, erect­ing that office, and giving warranty for its continuance, to the consummation of all things, Mat. 28.20. Eph. 4.13. (2.) By his continuance according unto his promise, to communicate spiritual gifts unto men, for the ministerial edification of the church.—(3.) On the duty of believers, or of the church, which is, to chuse, call, and solemnly set apart unto the office of the mini­stry, such as the Lord Christ by his spirit, hath made meet for it, according unto the rule of his word.’

‘If all these, or any of them do fail, I acknowledge, says he, that all ministerial authority and ability for the dispensation of gospel ordinances must fail also, and consequently the state of the church. And those who [Page 65] plead for the continuation of a successive ministry, with­out respect unto these things, without resolving both the authority and office of it unto them, do but erect a dead image, instead of the living and life giving institutions of Christ. They take away the living creature, and set up a skin stuffed with straw.’ Thus far Dr. Owen.

Compare this with the opinions of the present day. Mr. Fish says, ‘Tis true indeed, Jesus did not go into the colleges or schools of learning, for his first ministers: nor was there any need of such a step, while Christ him­self was personally present, to educate his sons. But they, whom he took into his school, were chiefly unlearn­ed and ignorant men: to whom, in a little time, he gave such a measure of knowledge, learning and grace, as abundantly qualified them for the great work, where­to he appointed them.’ p. 15. But now he says, ‘The separates having shut learning out of doors, have there­by deprived themselves of the best means of obtaining and preserving the knowledge of pure divine truths.’ p. 169. ‘Neither do they know whether the bible is rightly translated, ONLY as they have it from the learned.’ p. 167. And he says, our holding the whole power of ordi­nation to be in the church, is ‘without any direction in the whole word of God; and contrary to plain gospel example. p. 145.’ But Men says he, ‘Having the word of reconciliation committed to them, by auth­orized hands, they become ambassadors for Christ, p. 17.’

Here reader observe,

1. That I have proved that he charges us falsely, as to our shutting out learning.

2. Here is an awful stroke against the divinity of Jesus Christ: for it has been proved a little back, that the end of the conversation of true leaders is, Jesus Christ the SAME yesterday, and to day▪ and for ever. But the end of Mr. Fish's conversation is the contrary, and so is that of a great part of the ministers of our land: ^* For what less can be [Page 66] the import of saying, that Christ taught and qualified men for the ministry, when he was "personally present," as he cannot or does not do now; what less can it be than to say, he is not truly God by nature, but only so by office, and that having set up officers in his kingdom, he has gone to heaven, and left them to order affairs in his absence? God has often changed his dispensations, but his nature and his grace remain ever the same. He inspired men to write the scriptures, and gave them power to confirm his word with diverse miracles; which is not necessary, since the bible is acknowledged to be complete. But 'tis as great a truth now, as ever, that, No man knoweth the things of God, but the spirit of God; and that each faint has receiv­ed this spirit, that they might KNOW the things that are freely given to them of God. Yet Mr. F. declares that we [Page 67] don't ‘know whether we have the pure divine truths or not, ONLY as we have it from the learned.’ Whereas Paul says, my speech, and my preaching was not with entice­ing words of man's wisdom, but in DEMONSTRATION of the SPIRIT, and of power: that your FAITH should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, 1 Cor. 2.4, 5.11, 12. And John says, little children, ye have an uncti­on from the holy ONE, and ye KNOW all things; and the anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you: and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anoint­ing, teacheth you of all things. And he expressly declares, that it is the spirit of antichrist which denies this. 1 John 2.18 — 27.

Then let Mr. F. look to it; for he has told us from Dr. Owen that the ‘best of human nature, if not united to the divine nature, is no better than sand to build the church upon.’ p 56. Yea, and he has also given it as a clear mark of Christ's church, that it always has his holy spirit dwelling in it. What nonsense (if no worse) then is it, to tell of Christ's servants deriving their knowledge of the truth and right to preach it, only from the hands of men? His argument is that, ‘There is nothing of inspiration in translating the bible.’ Answer, there is as much of in­spiration in that, as there is in transcribing of it; and how many thousand times has that been done, before it came to the copy that he has seen? and how does he know he has got the pure truth, as it was wrote by inspiration? True protestants all confess, that the certain knowledge of the truth, is attained only by the same way in the nature of it, which Paul points out for the unlearned, to gain it by; even that when truth is rightly delivered in words easy to be understood, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all; and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. This is in the midst of the chapter, which is concluded with a precept which these ministers often remind us of, viz. Let all things be done decent­ly and in order, 1 Cor. 14.9, 24, 25, 40. And a main indecency and disorder which is therein condemned, is speak­ing in the church, in language not easily understood. And who are more guilty of such disorders than these great pre­tenders to learning! And what can be a greater plague to the church, than the setting up men for ministers, who never came to this knowledge of the truth?

[Page 68]But here I am checked, for Mr. F. says, ‘We appro­bate none for the work of the ministry, without enquiring after, and obtaining some hopeful evidences of an inward work of grace:’ and he says, that for separates to sug­gest the contrary, ‘shows a want of good temper, and of a tender regard to truth; for they might know better if they would.’ p. 166.

I desire to be informed, how we shall know better. Does Mr. F. believe in his conscience, that renewing grace is entailed to colleges? ^*

A gentleman of considerable learning, told me, that he was once discoursing this matter with an aged minister, not far from Mr. F. and asked him if he ever knew one who had got his degree at college, denied an approbation, if he sought it? He replied, that he had known one: but upon further enquiry, was forced to confess that, that one went into another county and got an approbation there. In fact, the right of trying ministers, which Christ gave to his church, and commended her for exercising that power, in detecting false men, (Rev. 2.2.) is now usurped by the clergy, and after they have thus robbed God's people of their right, they charge them with want of a good tem­per, if they will not be easy under such tyranny; and with a want of regard to truth, if they suggest that ministers don't use that power aright.

I would be far from charging them all with this; for one of Mr. Fish's brethren of as good credit as he, says of many who have taken degrees at college. ‘Alas, for the encouragement they meet with! No sooner do these light, airy, fashionable young men, who evidently deny, oppose and banter, both publickly and privately, the great soul humbling, and Christ exalting doctrines of the gos­pel, [Page 69] and ridicule experimental religion as enthusiasm, and resolve christian experiences into an over heated imagination, and disorder'd brain, if not satanical delusi­on; I say no sooner do these young men come forth from the feet of Gamaliel into the world, and begin to exercise their gifts, but they are at once invited to preach and settle in the ministry; and there are ministers and churches enough that will ordain them, notwithstanding the testimony which the serious, and such as are concer­ned for the doctrines and interest of Christ, bear against it.’

‘This is too much the case at this day. We have fre­quent and flagrant instances of it; he that runs may read it, and he is wilfully blind that does not see it. And alas how dark the aspect on these churches! These things are a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation.’ ^*

Let these ministers make straight paths for their own feet, before they bear so hard upon us again, for leaving of them.

Before I leave this head, I would insert a few passages ta­ken from Dr. Owen, who says, ‘Dr. Stillingfleet denies unto the people all liberty or ability to chose their own pastors, to judge what is meet for their own edification; what is heresy, or a pernicious error, and what is not, or any thing of like nature. This is almost the same with that of the Pharisees, concerning them who admi­red and followed the doctrine of our Saviour, John 7.49. This people which know not the law. — Yet was it this people whom the apostles directed to chose out from among themselves, persons meet for an evangelical office, Act 6. The same people who joined with the apostles and elders in the consideration of the grand case concerning the continuation of the legal ceremonies, and were associates with them in the determination of it, Acts 15. The same to whom all the apostolical epistles excepting some to particular persons, were written. — unto whom of all sorts, it is commanded that they should examine & try the spirit of antichrist and false teachers. — 1 John 2, 3. &c. That people, who in following ages adher'd unto the faith, and the orthodox profession of it, when almost all the bishops were become Arian heri­ticks.—This principle of the reformation, in vindication of the rights, liberties and privileges of christian people, [Page 70] to judge and chose for themselves in matters of religion, we do abide by, and maintain.’

‘Yea, says Dr. Owen, I shall not be afraid to say, that as the reformation was begun and carried on by this principle: so when this people shall thro' an apprehensi­on of their ignorance, weakness and unmeetness to judge in matters of religion for themselves, and their own duty, be kept and debar'd from it; or when thro' their own sloth, negligence and viciousness, they shall be really uncapable to manage their own interest in church affairs, as being fit only to be governed, if not as brute crea­tures, yet as mute persons, and that these things are im­proved by the ambition of the clergy, ingrosing all things in the church to themselves, as they did in former ages, — if the old popedom do not return, a new one will be erec­ted as bad as the other.’ ^*

I leave others to judge how near this comes to our day, with only observing, that we have seen one who calls him­self a congregational minister, not only claiming great pow­er in the church for himself and brethren, and judging others hearts; but also claiming infallibility in his judg­ment: for he concludes his long story of Mr. Davenport with these words, viz. ‘Suffer me here, to drop a word of awakening, to all you that have separated from our churches, that if this confession of Mr. Davenport, toge­ther with the truths that have been, and are yet to be told you, don't convince you that you have been, and still are deluded, that is, deceived and turned aside from the way of truth and duty, in the matter of your separa­ting, you may, from your non conviction, KNOW FOR CERTAIN, not only that you are thus deluded, but that your delusion is very strong.’ p. 128.

It deserves particular notice, that this new infallible tri­bunal, delivers off the sentence, as the old one used to do, from a fallible rule; which rule the judge does not seem to understand very well himself; for Mr. Dapenport's great­est error was, his assuming the power to himself to try mi­nisters, and then his openly "advising and urging" people to forsake such as he had condem'd, by a ‘judgment for­med, (in several instances) rashly, and upon slender grounds,’ and 'tis expressly "such separations" that he condemned and retracted; and the wrong which he parti­cularly [Page 71] observed in exhorters, was their being "puft up." This is the rule that our new judge gives sentence upon: and in p. 164. he says, ‘Stand by thy self, come not near me, for I am bolier than thou, (Psal. 65.5.) is certain­ly the language of spiritual pride; but this was the lan­guage of separating from our churches, because (as they said) there were hypocrites in them, which they could commune with.’ But I think we may claim liberty of a review upon this judgment: for the text says nothing con­cerning separating good men from bad ones: others are allowed to be holy, but the proud language is, I am holier than thou. Now this being the state of the case, let us look a little forward, and observe that our new judge owns the separates to be ‘erring brethren, and obliging good neighbours;’ yet some of his concluding advice to his people is, ‘Go not after them nor follow them.—How can you, with a good conscience, after I have shewn you from whence they arose, their principles, spirit and tendency? They are separates; let them be so, let them alone.’ p. 191.

Another article that Mr. D. confessed was his ‘follow­ing impulses or impressions, as a rule of conduct, whe­ther they came with or without a text of scripture; and neglecting to observe the analogy of scripture.’ This Mr. F. declares to be our case, p. 140. and by others, all inside religion is often treated with contempt under those names; as if none followed unreasonable impressions, but those who are zealous in religion; whereas all men are more or less guilty of such conduct: therefore I will insert bishop Burnet's thoughts thereon, who says, ‘There is a tyranny in most men's nature, which makes them desire to subdue all others, by the strength of their under­standing;—this imperious temper when it works upon subjects of religion, finds somewhat to raise its spleen, that was of itself imperious enough before; and that which is called fury and rage, when it is employed in other disputes, comes to be called zeal, when it is turned towards the theories that relate to another world. But when we consider what a sublime thing divine truth is, and what a poor low thing the mind of man is, we shall see cause to blunt a little the edge of our spirits, if they are too sharp in such matters. Man is much governed by fancy, and fancy follows the texture of the animal spirits, which render many more capable of apprehending ob­jects, that are some way proportioned to them, and more disposed to follow them; so that temper prepares men [Page 72] for some opinions, and prepossesses them against others. With the greatest part of mankind, education is so pow­erful that they are scarce ever able to overcome it; and if education and temper have hit together, it will require a very extraordinary elevation to rescue a man from their force.’ ^*

Let our antagonist duly consider this, and we shall hope to see him treat his brethren in another manner than he has done, concerning their leaving the ways that education inclines him to persist in. I shall finish Mr. Davenport's affair with remarking, that tho' our author mentions his burning of books, and attempting the same concerning cloaths, and ornaments at New-London; ^† yet he seems hardly sensible wherein the greatest mistake lay, in them transactions; which according to my weak apprehension was, in venting their resentment against things without, and not regarding what was within as they ought: for if we could burn all the idols, books or hereticks in the world, it would avail us nothing, without charity in our own souls, which rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth. It is high time to come to treat a little,

VI. Of the Manner of preaching.

MR Fish says, ‘Writing down all that is judged expedient to deliver, at that time, and pray­ing for assistance in delivering, is no way in­consistent, but incumbent duty.’ Eccl. 12.9, 10. ‘Because the preacher was wise, he still taught the peo­ple knowledge, yea he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.’ Answer, Solomon wrote his proverbs and speeches, in order to spread them thro' the world, but who ever thought that he read his prayer, and sermon at the dedication of the temple, 1 Kin. 8.? or his other speeches to the people. When writing for the press, and writing for the pulpit, can be proved to be equal, then this text may serve the turn 'tis brought for, and not 'till then. Forty five years ago Mr. Stoddard called this reading of sermons a "late practice of some ministers;" 'twas an upstart notion then, and he gives these reasons [Page 73] against it, viz. 1. ‘It was not the manner of the prophets and apostles. Barak read the roll that was written from the mouth of Jeremiah; but Jeremiah was not wont to read his prophecies. It was the manner of the Jews to read the scriptures in the synagogues; but after that, it was their way to instruct and exhort men, not from any writ­ten copy: Act. 13.15. Luk. 4.17, 20.’

2. "The reading of sermons is a dull way of preaching." ^* And Dr. Watts says, ‘A paper with the most pathetic lines written upon it, has no fear nor hope, no zeal or compassion; 'tis conscious of no design, nor has any sollicitude for the success: and a mere reader, who cold­ly tells the people what his paper says, seems to be as void of all these necessary qualifications, as his paper is.’ ^† Yet old Mr. John Cotton, one of the first teachers in Boston, goes beyond these later divines, and says, ‘The reading of a sermon for preaching, is a sinful manner of preach­ing; the difference will ever hold, between the word read, and preached: they are two distinct ordinances.’ ^‡ And I think these two reasons may evince the truth of his sentence: viz.

1. This reading method is a principal means of uphold­ing ignorant and false men in a way of imposing on man­kind. We have proof by various evidences, that several scholars in our colleges, both formerly and laterly, who either wanted a capacity or an inclination for learning, have practiced the getting others to make their lessons for them; and so by the use of notes they learn to impose up­on their tutors at college, and upon the people after they come from it. Hence,

2. It has a natural tendency to make the word of God of none effect, which requireth saints to know their teachers, and to esteem them very highly in love, for their works sake, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Whereas in this way, tho' people may sometimes know that their minister reads other mens works; yet how can they ever know when they read their own? One distinguishing character of false teachers is, that they have men's persons in admiration, because of advantage: and so instead of knowing and esteeming ministers for their works-sake, they would have their persons in admiration for the sake of their great swelling words and sounding titles. These are murmurers and complainers, who often [Page 74] deliver hard speeches against the members of Christ. Jud [...] 15, 16.

I heartily concur with the sentiments of an eminent mi­nister in London above 20 years ago, who said, ‘Paul's advice to Timothy is, meditate on these things, give thyself wholly unto them. 1 Tim. 4.15. You will find it in spirituals, as it is in temporals, the diligent hand ma­keth rich. He that makes no preparation before hand, what he should say to his people, tempts God to come out of his ordinary way to his assistance, as he that trusts wholly to his own preparations, makes a god of his gifts.’ ^* These words were delivered in an ordination sermon, from Luk. 12.42, 43. where ministers are called stew­ards; and as such they ought diligently to improve all the advantages which are given them, to treasure up know­ledge of divine truth; and ever to trust in God for directi­on and assistance to bring forth out of their treasure things new and old, as any occasion calls.

The method of true ministers, both in the jewish and christian church, always was to preach by faith. 2 Cor. 4.13. ‘We having the same spirit of faith, as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken: we also believe, and therefore speak.’ I am sensible that many will own that when a minister has faith in exercise, he can preach better without notes than with them, who yet say, he ought to have them, because he may be shut up. Others turn off the text now cited to extraordinary times; while both of these insist upon Christ's promise, Do I am with you alway, as the main proof of their notion of ministerial au­thority. Such confused work do men make with the bible! One while that promise shall entail Christ's presence to such teachers as men have heaped to themselves; and yet upon another turn, these same men are afraid he will not be with them, and so have sought out inventions, to get along with­out him. This brings us to speak,

VII. Of the way of Ministers Support.

WE are often told that they which preach the gospel, should live of the gospel, 1 Cor. 9.14. but as often, as many have read this text to others, it seems as tho' they had never yet road it to themselves; for the common practice of our land says, [Page 75] "They which preach the gospel shall live of the law:" yea, and not the law of God, but by the law of man; and however pious the persons might be who first made the law; I think the evidences that have been before exhi­bited, prove that the law in it self is of such a nature, as that which we read of in Psal. 94.20. For tho' some may think that those spoiling of goods, and haling men and wo­men to prison, which we have seen, is only an abuse of the law; yet a little reflection may convince them of their mis­take, and that the use of it carries those things in its very nature. The great design of the law, is to make all the inhabitants of the town or parish, pay what the rulers say is their part towards the incumbent ministers support; and the natural language of all that are attached to that way is, ‘If others are not made to do their part, I will not do mine,’ and where all the people love to have it so, they may get along without such open violence: but when any happen to be convinced that the way is wrong, and so will not give what is required, they are naturally led to take it by force. God said of the priests, who practised so formerly, that their sin was very great, 1 Sam. 2.16.17. And how vain is it, for men to say otherwise of such practice now?

Many plead in this case, that promise to the church, that Kings shall be her nursing fathers, and Queens her nursing mothers. But what an odd story would it be, for any to tell of very kind parents, who manifested such a tender re­gard for their children, that they would rob one child of his food, or cast him into a dungeon, to uphold another in grandeur! Power must be exerted in families or king­doms to restrain one person or community from injuring another; but nothing can bring any to act aright in the performance or support of divine worshp, but light and truth. Hence when the place and furniture for worship, was to be provided in the wilderness with costly materials; tho' the great lawgiver, could infallibly have prescribed each mans part by law, if he had been pleased so to do; yet he took another method. For Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel saying, This is the thing which the Lord commanded, saying, Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the Lord; gold, silver, &c. Exod. 35.4, 5. So when the temple was to be built, David appeared as a nursing father in Israel, and set his affection to the house of his God, in such a manner, [Page 76] that of his own proper goods, he gave thereto, three thou­sand talents of gold, and seven thousand talents of refined silver: and by his instruction and example, he moved other fathers and rulers to offer willingly for the house, above 5000 talents of gold, and a 10,000 talents of silver, beside great preparations of other materials. 1 Chron. 29.3—7. This was the method which was taken to prepare a place for worship, both in the wilderness, and in the promised land. And as to the performance of worship, the constant Languague of the divine direction was, that every person of all ranks should bring-his offering, which God had pre­scribed. And tho' I know but little, yet in all that has been said upon these controversies, I never could see any proof from the bible of any allowance of the use of coercive power, to compel any to bring their offering, even under the law, where church and state were one: how much less then can it be warrantable under the gospel, where Christ's kingdom is not of this world? ‘Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel, should live of the gospel. Live or the gospel (as one observes) not of the act of civil authority, not of a certain bargain made with the people, containing a bond of stipulation: but this is the order of it; those whom Christ sends, profit the people, and the church becomes bountiful, and the fruit the gospel produceth maintains the preachers of it.’

Paul in speaking of its effects among the Phillippians says, ‘Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.’ Phil. 4.17. And he says to the Galatians, ‘Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things: be not deceived, God is not mocked.’ Gal. 6.6, 7. The manner as well as matter of this duty is ordained by him; and he will not be mocked, ^* but takes notice of the [Page 77] ways of all those, who pay no regard to his command in this respect, and also of those who conceit they have found a better way for its performance, than that which God has prescribed; and he will deal with each of them according to their works.

I am sensible that this is a darling point with many, who will make a dreadful noise about consequences: and in particular, they often tell us, that, If it was not for this support of religion by law, a great part of the people would be mere heathens. Ah! that is a dreadful thing indeed! But who are heathens? Paul's account of them is, that they had some knowledge of the truth, and yet did not practice agreeable to it, but held the truth in unrighteousness; and when they knew God, they glorified him not AS GOD ^* Such were heathens in Paul's day; but things are so much chan­ged since, that we have a generation of christians now, who pay so little regard to God's authority, that few of them would do any thing to support their teachers, if man's authority was not exerted in the affair. The Lord says, I love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt-offering. Now this is in a prophecy which Jesus expressly applied to the gospel days; ^† and herein is a promise that Zion's mourn­ers shall be comforted, and strengthned to build the old wastes, and repair the waste cities, (or churches) the deso­lations of many generations; and that Christ's ministers shall be honoured and liberally supported among the gentiles; and to prevent mistakes about he manner of doing it, he immediately adds, I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt-offering, and I will direct their work in TRUTH, Isai. 61.1—8. The priests were supported of old out of the offerings of the people; even to hath the Lord ordain­ed, concerning his ministers now: but men have ordained the contrary, and rob others, yea even the widow and fatherless, to uphold the name of religion, and so think to [Page 78] cover themselves from the reproach and wrath, which is coming on the heathen. ^* So when destruction was decla­red of old, as coming upon a proud and sensual people, under the metaphor of a sweeping tempest, the scornful men that ruled them said, When the overflowing scourge shall pass thro', it shall not come unto us; for we have made lies our refuge, and under falshood have we hid our selves. Therefore after speaking of the sure foundation which be­lievers are built upon, the Lord says, Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, &c. Isai. 28.14—17. And as men often make a mock of such warnings, the pro­phet in ver. 22. says, Now therefore be ye not mockers, left your hands be made strong.

Mr. Fish insinuates that 'tis our lusts which move us to deny their way of supporting ministers, and says, ‘Let the lord of conscience judge, whether 'tis not covetous­ness, (accompanied with wilfulness and disobedience, all founded on weakness) rather than pure conscience, that [Page 79] enduceth the separates to forfeit their honour, in break­ing their own and their fathers civil covenants, to save their money.’ p. 164. Did mortals ever hear such a reference before!

1. If he left the affair with the Lord of conscience, why does he publish such reproachful suggestions to the world? for hereby we are stigmatized in this world, while the tri­al is refer'd to that which is to come.

2. In the face of this reference to the great Judge, he has judged himself, that we have ‘forfeited our honor, to save our money,’ and if that is decided, what then is left to the other Judge? unless it be what spiritual judges used to refer to the secular arm, viz, the execution of their sentence, and inflicting of punishment upon such as they had condemned.

3. Here is a falshood in the face of his bill, for he char­ges us with "breaking civil covenants," whereas we have no contention with him about civil covenants; the point we are upon, is the support of religious worship. The offer­ings of the people, out of which they who ministred at the altar were fed, were as different from civil contracts, as their own houses were from the temple. Covenants which are contrary to God's word, ought not to be kept. Did Herod's covenant or oath excuse him in taking off John's head? But how are these covenants made, that we should forfeit our honour in breaking of them? Answer, the majority of a town or parish votes, to a candidate a certain sum, to come and be their minister; and let them offer ever so much, the candidate rarely takes up with the first proposal, and tho' 'tis often said by ministers, that the "call of the people is the call of God;" yet 'tis commonly the worldly sum that turns the scale. This is too evident in our land, to make a jest of; and it has produced the same effects here as in the other England, where the excellent Hervey cried out with his dying breath, ‘Oh! why do ministers neglect the charge of so kind a Saviour; fawn upon the great, and hunt after worldly preferments with so much eagerness, to the disgrace of our order? These, these are the things, and not our poverty or obscurity, which render the clergy so justly contemptible to the worldlings.’

It is the majority of the people, be they saints or sinners, which make these covenants, and John gives this as a distinguishing mark of false prophets, that they are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world hear­eth [Page 80] them. 1 John 4.5. And the text which our author is labouring to apply to us, when he delivered this sentence, is easily re [...]orted, viz. 2 Tim. 4.3. for it were easy to shew, that a great part of the congregations among us, will not endure sound doctrine, and also that after their own lusts they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears. His sense of heaping to themselves teachers, is, ‘that they are plenty and cheap;’ and he says of separates, that ‘according to one grand principle of their churches, every one must exercise his gifts in public, as he is impressed or moved by the spirit: which gives them teachers, heaps upon heaps; besides their ordained elders, who are gene­rally taken out of the same heaps.’ p. 163 I have be­fore shewn that we hold▪ with the apostles, that each one ought to improve the gifts which God has given him; but to pretend that we hold all to have the gift for pub­lick teachers, is only to give another proof of his being a false accuser, if not a fierce despiser of those that are good. 2 Tim. 3.3. Instead of our having heaps of teachers, there is such a scarcity of them, that the cries of hungry souls, constrain ordained elders to be absent from their peo­ple, much more than they would think to be duty, if there were not so many destitute flocks, while none can pretend, but that there is a plenty of teachers on the other side, whom men have taught, or made to themselves: and let every conscience judge which sort do most to gratify men's lusts or itching ears. And as to being cheap, it is no new thing for men to lavish gold out of the bag, ^* to set up and adorn false worship, rather than to forsake all for Christ.

Our author insinuates, that we are not governed by pure conscience, but rather by various lusts founded on weak­ness: but does he or his brethren take Paul's advice and directions, about dealing with weak brethren? or rather is not the liberty which they would allow, just the same with Pharaoh's; go ye, serve the Lord: only let your flocks and your herds be stayed. ^† Our fathers were not sensible [Page 81] at first, what evils these are attending the use of coercive power to support religion. But our lieut. governor says, ‘We find nothing in the new charter, of an ecclesiastical constitution. Liberty of conscience is granted to all, except Papists.’ ^* And Dr. Mather informs us, that in a sermon to the first general assembly, after Plymouth and Massachusetts colonies were united, from 2 Chron. 12.12. it was declared concerning the civil magistrate, that, ‘He is most properly the officer of human society, and that a christian by non-conformity to this or that imposed way of worship, does not break the terms on which he is to enjoy the benefit of human society. A man has a right unto his life, his estate, his liberty, and his family, altho' he should not come up to these & those blessed institutions of our Lord.’ And of prosecuting such as dissent, he says, ‘These violences may bring the erroneous to be hypocrites; but they will never make them to be believers; no, they naturally prejudice mens minds against the cause, which is therein pretended for, as being a weak, a wrong, an [Page 82] evil cause.— The churches of God abroad counted, that things did not go well among us, until they judg­ed us more fully come up unto the apostolical rule, To leave the otherwise minded unto God. Nor would I de­sire my self to suffer persecution upon a clearer cause than that of testifying against our persecution of other christians, that are not of my opinion.’ ^† I come to give my thoughts.

VIII. Of Covenant-breaking.

WE are often charged with this, and Mr. Fish says, ‘The body of the separates are truce breakers: for whereas they promised, to walk with us in holy fellowship, in all gospel ordinances, they openly renounced communion with us, when we the standing churches, were daily attending these ordinances of Christ, agreeable to his institution.’ page. 173.

Now in order to view this matter in a just light, we should know what a gospel covenant is; and Paul says, They first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God. And David says, I have sworn, and I will per­form it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments. The engagement to God is perpetual, and that to one another is conditional, by the will of God; which makes it to be as incumbent duty to withdraw from persons or churches, who are evidently corrupt, and will not be reclaimed, as to walk with those who are not so. Some bring that text in the present case, which says of a saint. He sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not: so he does, and he will keep God's righteous judgments, let it turn out to his own hurt ever so much; even tho' they put him out of the synagogua, or kill him therefor. God says to his antient church, I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the know­ledge of God, more than burnt-offerings: but they like men, have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt trea­cherously against me, Hos. 6.6, 7. The words are ex­pressly applied by our Saviour, to those who were as zea­lous for learning and order, as many among us, when they complained of his freedom and compassion towards sinners. Mat. 9.13. And of his disciples plucking [...]ars of corn on the sabbath, to satisfy their hunger. Mat. 12.1 — 7. [Page 83] And will not the same Jesus, vindicate the cause of his dis­ciples now, when they go over men's lines to get food for their hungry souls? which was as I have proved the first cause of our separation. One of the most frightful charges which our author lays against us is, ‘That the following disorders, are owing chiefly, if not entirely to the SEPARATIONS, viz. The Lord's-day is awfully pro­phaned, by numbers tarrying at home, not finding a freedom to attend any publick worship at all; and no enqui [...]y is made after them, nor any care▪ (that I know of) taken of them by authority, supposing they are at other meetings; for none knows where they properly belong; others are present at one meeting, in the morn­ing, and at noon ride off in companies to other meet­ings, at a distance, it may be to hear the separates; and after that, go and do as they please; pleading liberty of conscience.’ p. 72.

This is indeed a terrible story, but many a Jesuit has told as frightful a one, about the consequences of letting com­mon people h [...]ve the bible; and with as much truth as this: for all the argument turns upon this point, That because many have abused liberty, therefore we must not let people use it. And tho' both churchmen and dissenters have often amused people with their harrangues upon li­berty of conscience; yet, as Dr. Owen observes, ‘When it comes unto the issue, where a man is born, and in what church he is baptized in his infancy, there all choice is prevented, and in the communion of that church he is to abide, on the penalties of being esteeme [...] and dealt with as a schismatick. In what national church any person is baptized, in that national church he is to continue, or answer the contrary at his peril. And in the precincts of what parish his habitation falls to be, in that particular parish-church is he bound to communicate in all ordinances of worship.’ ^* This is the sentence of the same author that Mr. Fish quotes, the most of any one when he is shewing the attempts which the gates of hell makes against Christ's church. And he must be strangely blinded who can't see that the case a­mong these, which our antagonist calls congregational chur­ches, is exactly like what Dr. Owen describes of national ones. I have already produced the testimony of the heads of one of the colleges, that ministers would confine us all to for teachers, wherein they say, ‘That neither the ma­jor part of the members in full communion, nor any [Page 84] other persons in any parish or society, have any right or warrant to appoint any house or place for worship on the sabbath, distinct and separate from, and in oppositi­on to the meeting-house, the public place appointed by the general-assembly, and the parish.’ The general as­sembly are the law-givers for the church, and the parish are the executors thereof: and we have instances in all parts of the land, of persons who would not separate from the churches in general, if they might be allowed only the liberty of going a little further over the parish line to join where they are best edified; but that must not be suffered, lest one minister interfere with another, for each one must look to his gain from his quarter: and the honour also of the parish minister is concerned. ^*

[Page 85]A glaring proof of this, has lately been exposed to the public. A number of people in one part of Ipswich, with­drew from a minister, who openly appeared against the re­vival of religion, above 20 years ago, and embodied into a church, and made choice of Mr. John Cleaveland for their pastor; who had been expelled out of college, as rela­ted before: yet a number of ministers, who were friends to that revival, assisted in his ordination, and so received that church into fellowship with the standing churches, and they afterward were set off as a distinct society, by the ge­neral court. But as they were blessed with a wonderful work of conviction and conversion among them four years ago, many from neighbouring parishes, who had received soul-deliverance there, were desirous of joining to that church, and were accordingly received; which gave so great offence that many neighbouring ministers who own'd it to be a good work, yet have now refused communion with Mr. Cleaveland and his church, only because they receive members over parish lines. A distinct narrative of these things he published to the world, last summer. So that all the pretence of liberty of conscience in our land, comes to the same issue that Dr. Owen speaks of, even li­berty to join with the parish church, or be esteemed a schismatick.

‘I heartily concur with him that, causeless separations from established churches, walking according to the or­der of the gospel (tho' perhaps failing in the practice of some things of small concernment) is no small sin: but separation from the sinful practices and disorderly walk­ings, and false unwarranted ways of worship in any, is to fulfil the precept of not partaking in other mens sins. ^* But (as he says elsewhere) ^† an old opinion of the unlawfulness of separation from a church, on the account of the mixture of wicked men in it, is made a scarecrow to frighten men from attempting the reforma­tion of the greatest evils.’ Again he says, ‘churches are not such sacred machines as some suppose, erected and acted for the outward interest and advantage of any sort of men; but only means of the edification of believ­ers, which they are bound to make use of, in obedience [Page 86] unto the commands of Christ, and no otherwise.’ ^* Once "more he says, ‘A minister enabled by spiritual gifts, and engaged by sense of duty to labor constantly in the use of all means appointed by Christ, for the edification of the church, or increase of his mystical body, is requi­red in such a church, as a believer may conscientiously join himself unto. And where it is otherwise, let men cry out of schism and faction whilst they please, Jesus Christ will acquit his disciples, in the exercise of their liberty, and accept them in the discharge of their duty.’ ^† Thus far the great Dr. Owen; who immediately adds, that, ‘If it be said, that if all men be thus allowed to judge of what is best for their own edification, and to act according unto the judgment which they make, they will be continually parting from one church unto another, until all things are filled with disturbance and confusi­on; I say, (1.) That the contrary assertion, namely, that men are not allowed to judge what is meet and best for their own edification, or not to act according to the judgment they make herein, may possibly keep up some churches, but is the ready way to destroy all religion. (2.) That many of those by whom this liberty is denied unto professing christians, yet do indeed take it for grant­ed, that they have such a liberty, and that it is their du­ty to make use of it: for what are all the contests be­tween the church of Rome, and the church of England, so far as christians that are not churchmen, are concerned in them? is it not in, whether of these churches edifica­tion may be best obtained? If this be not the ball be­tween us, I know not what is. — (3.) All christians, actually do so; they do judge for themselves, unless they are brutish; they do act according unto that judgment, unless they are hardned in sin, and therefore who do not so are not to be esteemed disciples of Christ. To sup­pose that all things of spiritual and eternal concernment, that men are not determined and acted, every one by his own judgment, is an imagination of men who think but little of what they are, or do, or say, or write. Even those who shut their eyes against the light, and follow in the herd, resolving not to enquire into any of these things, do it, because they judge it is best for them so to do. (4.) It is commonly acknowledged by pro­testants, that private christians have a judgment of dis­cretion in things of religion. The term was invented [Page 87] to grant them some liberty of judgment, in opposition unto the blind obedience required by the church of Rome, but withal to put a restraint upon it, and a distinction of some superior judgment, it may be, in the church or others.—But to allow men a judgment of discretion, and not to grant it their duty to act according unto that judgment, is to oblige them to be fools, and to act, not dis­creetly, at least not according unto their own discretion.’ ‘(5.) The same is to be spoken of gospel discipline, with­out which neither can the duties of church societies be observed, nor the ends of them attained. The neg­lect, the loss, the abuse hereof, is that which hath ruin­ed the glory of the christian religion in the world, and brought the whole profession of it into confusion. Here­on have the fervency and sincerity of true evangelical, mutual love been abated, yea, utterly lost: for that love which Jesus Christ requireth among his disciples, is such as never was in the world before, amongst men, nor can be in the world, but on the principles of the gospel, and faith therein. Therefore it is called his new-command­ment. The continuation of it amongst the generality of christians, is but vainly pretended; little or nothing of the reality of it in its due exercise is found. And this hath ensued on the neglect of evangelical discipline in churches, or the turning of it into a worldly dominion. For one principle end of it, is the preservation, guidance, and acting of this love. That mutual watch over one another that ought to be in all the members of the church, the principal evidence and fruit of love without dissimulation, is also lost hereby. Most men are rather ready to say in the spirit and words of Cain, Am I my brothers keeper? than to attend unto the command of the apostles, Exhort one another daily, left any be hard­ned thro' the deceitfulness of sin; or comply with the command of our Saviour, if thy brother offend thee, tell him of it between him and thee. By this means likewise is the purity of communion lost, and those received prin­cipal members of churches, who by all the rules of pri­mitive discipline, ought to be cast out of them.’ ^*

Dr. Owen has herein given so clear and full an answer to Mr. Fish's charges against us, that I could not forbear tran­scribing more than I at first designed: and let it be parti­cularly noted, that either the neglect of gospel discipline, or the turning of it into a worldly dominion, is, (in the view [Page 88] of that eminent man of God) that which brings in confu­sion and ruin among christian professors: and he is so far from Mr. Fish's mind, who makes the separations the chief cause thereof, that he says, ^* ‘I do not know how far God may accept of churches in a very corrupt state, and of worship much depraved, until they have new means for their reformation. Nor will I make any judgment of persons, as unto their eternal condition, who walk in churches so corrupted, and in the performance of wor­ship so depraved: but as unto them who know them to be so corrupted and depraved, it is a damnable sin to join with them, or not to separate from them.’ Rev. 18.4.

I leave every rational soul to judge, whether there has not been many proofs already given, that the churches which Mr. F. pleads for, are greatly corrupted and depra­ved, in those very points which Dr. Owen speaks of. Our authors proceedings have often made me think of a man, who had a mind to beat his neighbour, and hastily takes a sword by the blade, to club the other with the hilt; when 'tis only for the other to take hold of the hilt, and he may easily run the aggressor thro' with his own sword. For my part, I am but a poor soldier, and have a natural aversion to fighting; yet since I have seen the truth, and people of God so much abused by Mr. Fish and his brethren, I must return the charge, both of truce-breaking, and false-accu­sing, to their own doors; for their covenant as ministers, was to feed Christ's sheep and lambs: but instead of that, how have the green pastures of experimental religion been frodden down, and the deep water fouled, i. e. the word of God corrupted by them?

Mr. F's nine sermons, are a proper specimen of that treatment, which scattered Christ's sheep in that day: and ever since, these sheep used their christian liberty, ^† by joining together to worship God according to their own understanding of divine rule; those ministers have been false-accusers of them, even down to this time. The mi­nisters in Windham county, in their association letter against the separates say, p. 32. ‘Another of these false and evil principles, which some have drank in, and others are striken with, is, that no other call is necessary to a [Page 89] persons undertaking to preach the gospel, but his being a true christian, and having an inward motion of the spirit, or a perswasion in his own mind, that it is the will of God he should preach and perform other ministerial acts: the necessary consequence of which is, that there is no standing instituted ministry, or order of men, peculi­arly appointed to that work in the christian church, known and distinguished from all others, by the visible laws of Christ's kingdom. From this falshood (say they,) chiefly have sprung up so many preachers and ex­horters who are unconvincible, and will hear no reason nor argument against their practice.’ Then they pro­ceed to a long train of arguments to prove the gospel ministry to be an institution of Christ.

But they might, with as much truth or propriety, have charged the separates in general, with denying the Bible, because they did not come to hearthem explain or corrupt it; and so have gone on to prove it to be the word of God: for we have all along held, that gospel ministers are ‘an order of men peculiarly appointed to that work in the christian church, know and distinguished from all others by the visible laws of Christ's kingdom,’ as strongly as they do, who condemn us. 'Tis true we don't fix that order inac­cademical degrees, nor in a local succession; neither do we know men to be Christ's ministers by their dress, or titles. And 'tis acknowledged that ‘no arguments have convin­ced us,’ as yet, that any are true ministers, because they have such a spirit of discerning as to see covetousness, in such as choose to suffer spoiling of goods or imprisonment rather than to pay what is demanded in an un-gospel way: while at the same time they can't see it in themselves, tho' they permit the widow and fatherless to be distrained upon, rather than forego any part of what they first agreed for. Yea, who can discern cevetousness in ministers abroad, who ap­pear willing to spend and be spent for the good of souls, and make no demands, but only take what is freely given them; and yet can't discern it at home, where they can never have enough, but are often urging for additions to the sum they first bargained for. ^*

[Page 90]Neither are we convinced that those are following the humble Jesus, who accuse others with pride and boast­ing, who attempt to improve their gifts without these mi­nisters licence, and aspire to such greatness as to forbid them: while they set up youths for ministers, who have not gifts, even after they have laid their hands on them, suffi­cient to teach publickly without reading line by line as children do their lessons.

I have observed that Dr. Chauncy himself owns, that 'tis ‘a real service to the cause of Christ to expose the cha­racters of visibly wicked ministers, and lessen their power to do mischief.’ And had I not been convinced that we have many such in our land, who have been great causers of many divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrines of the gospel, who yet with good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, I could by no means have been willing to have followed them so far thro' their winding laberinths, many when they meet with the word division or separation in an ill sense, they readily apply it to such as the clergy have stigmatized under that name. ‘But alas! (says Dr. Franck) we never enquire, who is the cause of the trouble. Not they, who earnestly contend for God's word, but they that will not receive it, are the cause of all the noise and disquiet, and therefore ought to be punished: but where the wolf is judge, the poor sheep always trouble the water.’ ^*

For the association to represent, because we hold to an internal call into the ministry, that we hold to, "no other," is as unjust as it would be to assert, because we hold to internal religion, that therefore we hold to nothing exter­nal. And Mr. Fish is more inexcusable than they in say­ing we are ‘influenced rather by inward impressions, than by the plain word of God, or manifest pointings of providence. And don't hold to the necessity of com­mon learning in ministers; but say, the less of learning the more of faith.’ p. 139.165.177. For our senti­ments have been published by various hands which express the contrary, and which, amidst all our mistakes, has been in a measure confirmed by our practice; but it seems to [Page 91] be beneath the dignity of these ministers, to take any notice of lay teachers writings, even tho' it be to correct their mistakes, (a notable proof of their humility!) And the chief which he advances against us before the world, is upon his word of honor. ^* I must not therefore let ano­ther of his charges pass without notice.

While Mr. F. is essaying to open the separates princi­ples, he says, ‘Their first minister in this place (i. e. Stonington) was elected by revelation, which was after this manner. The brethren at a meeting, appointed for the purpose, having an impression, that if it was the Lord's will that they should have a minister, he would shew it to them, and reveal the man's name, or shew them the very man. Upon this, one of their number, in a vision or swoon, had a revelation, that he himself was to be their minister: but the brethren not having fellow­ship with him in his discovery, rejected his revelation; tho' he declared to me he knew it to be from heaven. At the next meeting, and under the like impression in a trance or swoon, 'twas revealed to another brother that such a man, by name, was to be their minister; with which they had fellowship: and him they chose,—ordain'd,— silenc'd,—cast out of their church, and delivered up to satan, in less than a year. p. 145.’

As it happens, I was an eye and ear witness of the vi­sible transactions of that meeting, (for tho' he makes it two meetings, it was but one) therefore I will give the plain state of the visible facts, leaving what is secret to others. [Page 92] Mr. Matthew Smith of Mansfield, had preached upon trial, to that church, a considerable time, 'till they thought proper to appoint a meeting to seek for divine direction, and to proceed to the choice of a pastor, as they might have clearness; and there happened to be several other teachers present, one of which, when the question was asked about, what should be the method of proceeding, in choosing a pastor? Answered, that if any see it to be their lot, they should declare it. But little if any reply was made there­to; and soon after, this man fell into a strange frame, and then made the declaration which Mr. F. speaks of: which struck a visible damp upon the assembly, as being an unex­pected thing, and none concurred therewith. And the rest of the day was spent in worship, 'till in, or near the even­ing, when some of the church got into a labour with one of their brethren, upon some of his moral conduct, which they judged not to be agreeable to rule: and at length he was brought to confess it, which gave as visible a quick­ning to their minds, as the other declaration had a damp: and a leading brother in the church being much overcome, took hold of Mr. Smith (who was expected before to be their minister) and told him he was the man to go before them; ^* and all concurred therewith: and he was ordain­ed Dec. 10. 1746. and he ministred in word and ordinan­ces to them, 'till the spring 1749. Then he went off and left his flock; for which, after various labours with him, he was, by the advice of a council, excommunicated on July 20. 1750. as I had the account in a letter from a member of the council soon after, which letter is now be­fore me. Three or four years afterwards, Mr. Smith re­turned and confest his fault to the church, and they for­gave him. The man also who made that declaration, has also seen clearly since how he was imposed upon then, as I have reason to think, from the account he gave me of it, some years ago.

This is the true state of those affairs, as may be proved; and I leave the reader to make his own remarks. But O New-England! New-England! whither art thou fallen! Once it could be said of thee that, ‘No man became a minister or communicant in thy churches, until he had been severely examined about his regeneration, as well as conversation; and if any minister did misbehave himself, he soon heard of it, and became either a penitent, or a [Page 93] deposed man.’ ^* Yet now, those who are making some imperfect attempts to restore that ancient discipline, are thus publickly stigmatized by one of thy ministers, who so­lemnly declares he does it with a good design, even to draw their picture to the life, — that they may be ashamed, p. 130. Yet as he has omitted two strokes in the colouring, which have often been given out from the pulpits in this land, and which have not been sufficiently detected to the public, I will take this occasion to correct them.

In order to shew the dreadful tendency of separations, ministers have often mentioned, Ward's daughter that was taken from her husband, and John Smith's wife who was poisoned with rats-bane. The facts were thus; one Ward had met with the separates in Attleborough for a while, and had preached to such as would hear him; but he never was received into their church. He had one only child who did not live comfortably with her husband, and at length Ward took a fancy that she had not got the right man; and so took her away, and gave her to another: now tho' he was not a member with them, yet some of the brethren in Attleborough, went as neighbours, and labou­red to convince him of his error; but he persi [...]ed therein, and in the event was forced to leave his country. John Smith was a member of Mr. Pain's church in Canterbury, but after a while he declared that 'twas revealed to him that such a woman was to be his wife; and when he was questioned upon it, he said he did not pretend to put away the wife he then had, but providence would take her out of the way. This appeared so dark that the church cal­led him to account for it, and the pastor (as he told me) openly told him in the church, that this principle carried murder in its nature; but he would not hear the church, and therefore was cast out. And three or four months af­ter, he went to an apothecary at Norwich, and bought some rats-bane; with which 'twas supposed, the woman he had a fancy for, poison'd his wife; for which they were tried at Windham court; when (as I was credibly informed) they took off such as were separates from the jury; and, to the astonishment of many were acquitted; and afterward they were married together, but lived and died miserably. This [Page 94] is the open state of those facts; and yet they have been cast upon the separates, from one end of the land to the other, as evidences of the bad tendency of their separation!

However, this is no new thing; 'tis an old stratagem of those who have the form but deny the power of godliness, from whom we are required to turn away. ‘But (said a great reformer in Germany) who but a mad man would charge Christ with the guilt of Judas? or blame the apostles and the godly presbyters of the church at Ephe­sus for that out of their own selves there did men arise speaking perverse things?’ ^*

Now reader thou art to judge for thy self. I have joined issue with Mr. Fish, that ‘the church of Christ in which his spirit dwells, has never been a bitter, fierce, revenge­ful, persecuting church: but the reverse.’ And he has exerted all his learning in an attempt to prove that the standing churches have that spirit, and that the separates have the contrary character. And he has advanced it as a principal evidence of their not having the spirit of Christ, that ‘They endeavoured to draw off every true Christian, and would have left a congregation behind them, of no­thing but hypocrites and graceless persons.’ This is brought to prove that they had not a kind and charitable spirit. But if he had reviewed a text that stands as a mott [...] in his title page, which calls him to measure the pattern; and had observed that the rule given to measure the form and fashion of God's house by, with the goings out and comings in thereof, is, that, The whole limit thereof round about shall be, MOST HOLY: behold, THIS is the law of the house. Ezek. 43.10—12. And also had taken notice, that the terms given to another prophet, upon which alone he should be God's mouth, were, If thou take forth the pre­cious from the vile. (Jer. 15.19.) And that the holy spirit expressly commands us in the new testament, to Come out and be separate from unbelievers; and to turn away from those who have the form, but deny the power of godliness. 2. Cor. 6.14—17. 2 Tim. 3.5. If he had duly observed these rules, how could he ever have charged the acting upon them, as the first evidence that those who acted so, had not the spirit that indicted them; but that they had an unmerciful spirit because they would not go with him and others in a contrary way?

Indeed the other text in his title page; (They are not all Israel which are of Israel,) plainly points us to the way [Page 95] that these ministers get along in, concerning these affairs. They confound the constitution of the jewish and christian church together; and shuffle and shift from one to the other, as occasion suits: and then charge us with not distin­guishing between the visible and invisible church. They allow that the invisible church contains none but the first-born which are written in heaven. Heb. 12.23. But they would have the visible church contain abundance more; and fly to the Jews, to parables, and to hypocrites to sup­port their notions. Whereas the proper notion of visible, is the making manifest what was before invisible: hence says Paul, with the heart man believeth; and with the mouth confession is made. Therefore; an outward shew of what is not invisibly real, is hypocrisy. ^* Thus while they accuse others with not distinguishing things, they turn things up­side down, (Isai. 29.16.) at a sad rate.

The only reason why any beside regenerate souls get in­to the visible church, is not owing to the rule, but to man's imperfection in acting upon it. Hence old Mr. Shepherd, in answer to this question: ‘Do not hypocrites, and no true members of Christ creep in?’ says ‘yes: But if they could have been known to be such, they ought to be kept out; and when they are known, they are orderly to be cast out. Mat. 25.1. 2 Tim. 3.5. Rev. 2.20. Tit. 3.10.’ ^† This is the sentence of one of the fathers who composed the congregational platform: and I know not of a single member in all our churches, who could not heartily subscribe thereto; and a principal cause of our separation was the apostacy (as I have shewn of those who still usurp that name) from these principles, even so far as to say by word and practice of the church, what Christ says of the world; Let tares and wheat grow together. And because we would not join with them in this contra­diction of our Lord, they have contradicted that very com­mand ever since in their practice.

[Page 96]Mr. Fish labours to prove, that we had a bitter perse­cuting spirit, because many called those ministers, Hire­lings ‘and blind guides, who were greedy of filthy lucre. p. 155.’ 'Tis acknowledged that we talk'd so, and thought so, concerning many of them, and retain such thoughts to this day; and the reader has now seen a little of our grounds for such thoughts. But we never thought so of all those who are called standing ministers. No, but still retain a hearty regard to many ministers and members in those churches as being saints: yet truth is not to be par­ted with, for the greatest, nor the best of men. When Peter and Barnabas were carried away with a delusive scheme of confounding the jewish and christian dispensation together, Paul withstood them to the face, because they walked not uprightly according to the TRUTH of the gospel, And would not give place by subjection, no not for an hour. Gal. 2.5, 11, 14. yet our refusing subjection, and openly withstanding these ministers after several years trial, is "charged as a rash and hasty thing:" and Mr. F. tells much of the wrong manner of the separates behaving then.

To which I would say, I heartily concur with Mr. Prince that, ‘As for spiritual pride and rash judging,—some lately wrought upon, especially in hours of temptation, have grievously exceeded, yet some hopefully renewed are freer than others from those excesses: and, says he, I never knew the most grown, humble and prudent saint on earth wholly without them; for if I had I should hold perfection in the present state: much less can we expect the new-born convert to be so humblewise, &c. as grown christians.’ ^* But tho' our author is forced to own, that the separates have considerable of a good tem­per and behavior among them now; yet after raking up many of the rashest things he could find in former times, he says, ‘Whatever good things they have among them, they have them not as separates: —The things that I have told you of above, are their characteristicks,’ p. 160. He even outdoes the Jews, for when they were afraid that a good work which Jesus had wrought, would be taken is an evidence for him; they said, Give God the praise, we know that this man is a sinner. John 9.24. But now, he implicitly says, give us the praise; for he says, ‘I know not one principle or practice among them, that is agreea­able to the gospel, but what they learned in OUR chur­ches.’ p. 113.

[Page 97]On the other hand his party have imprisoned at least five of our brethren only for preaching without their licence; ^* and several scores of persons for ministers rates; beside several thousands of pounds worth of goods, which have been torn away for the same purpose: yet not a single in­stance is produced of the use of any violent methods on our side; not so much as to rescue any of those persons or goods, nor to revenge upon any for such injuries. Not unto us, not unto us, but to God's name alone belongs the glory that we have been thus kept. One of Mr. Fish's greatest proofs of the separates having a bad spirit, is some rash expressions a poor irishman used towards him at an ordina­tion, which he says others did not rebuke him for: but I could have balanced them expressions with rash actions on his side. For at a separate ordination in May 1750, in a county town, after a stage was erected for the performing the work upon, and one of our elders had begun the wor­ship of God, he was violently pulled down, and the stage torn to pieces, in the presence of the high Sheriff; one or more justices of the peace and the parish minister, who al­together did as little to check it, as our leaders did in the other case: and I could have balanced all his accounts at that rate. But I have no liking to that method. I would speak it to the honor of God, that in later years many of our rulers have acted worthily in their places, to check and restrain such abuses. And since Mr. F. grants that the separates are now, "very peaceable, kind, obliging good neighbours:" 'tis a public shame to him, and many of his brethren that they will not let them live so.