ALL must allow that to know, the true limits of the church of Christ, what are his institutions, and who have a right to them, are matters of no small impor­tance; tho' many have complained, and not without reason, that in many of the controver­sies about them in our day, the nature of the subject has not been so closely attended to as it ought, but that many things have been intro­duced which tend to mislead or perplex the en­quiring mind, rather than to enlighten it. And as I shall have occasion before I close this dis­course to give the particular reasons of my writ­ing upon this subject, I desire to refer the reader thereto for his own satisfaction, and would pro­ceed directly to the argument in hand.

In 1767 Mr. Joseph Fish published nine ser­mons from Mat. 16.18. in which he tried to prove, that those called standing churches in New-England, are built upon the Rock, and from [Page 4]thence to shew what great evils they are guilty of who have withdrawn from them. In this proceeding many were so fully persuaded that he had injured both the truth and people of God, that I was prevailed with to publish an axamina­tion of those sermons in 1768.

Against which Mr. F. has endeavoured to vin­dicate himself and his sermons, in a piece intitled, The Examiner Examined, printed 1771; which, for reasons hereafter to be given, I think expedient to make some reply to, under the following heads.

I. Of the matter of the gospel church.

This is the capital point of our dispute. I concurred with Mr. F. that the ‘Truth which Peter confessed, or the person of Christ, of whom this confession is made, is the ROCK upon which Jesus Christ resolves to build his church; and that Peter was one of those lively stones, or precious materials of that building.’ And when he observed from Deut. 29.10, &c. ‘That children, even infants were always reckoned a part of that body or church, which the Lord gathered in Abraham's family,’ I readily concurred with that also; but when he said, ‘Is it not altogether reasonable to suppose that the Christian church is made up of the same materials, that the Jewish church was?’ my answer was, No by no means, because God has said the contrary; to prove which I referred him to ser. 31.31, 32. Heb. 8.5, &c.^* Ex. p. 11, 12.

[Page 5] Now in reply Mr. F. charges me a number of times with entirely mistaking his meaning, for no better reason that I can see, than only because I dont agree with it. At length he comes to the point in hand, and says if he understands me, he thinks my meaning is, ‘That the covenant which God made with Israel when he brought them up out of Egypt, was the covenant which took in parents and children, and made them the materials of the Jewish church; but the new covenant which he would make with them afterwards is essentially different from that covenant; and therefore there must be an essential difference in the materials of the churches, Jewish and Christian.’ p. 27.— —True, that is my meaning; and what has he produced against it? Why he first tries to reduce it to this absurdity; that I hold the ma­terials of the visible church to be all gracious persons, and yet own that hypocrites do some­times creep into it; which consequently puts an end to the distinction between visible and invisible.

‘These, says he, are his sentiments so far as I can see any thing of his meaning.’ Yet I did repeatedly answer this very objection, Ex. p. 57, 95. And Mr. F. has a remark upon a page in which I observed that, These ministers confound the constitution of the Jewish and Christian chur­ches 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; [Page 6]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. The only reason why any get into the visible church who are not born again, is not owing to the rule, but to the imperfection of men in acting upon it. Hence old Mr. Shepard, 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.’ ^*

These are my words; and I did hope that at least the sentence of one of our learned fathers who composed the Cambridge platform, would have had some weight with Mr. F. but no; that old beaten road must be kept, let fathers or children be trampled upon ever so much, yea and his eyes are so dim that he says, "I dont see why Mr. B. ‘may not just as well say of Paul and his brethren in the ministry, as he does of me and mine:—for who of all writers or preachers, does so much as Paul and the other apostles, at connecting the Jewish and Christian churches together; shewing that the latter springs out of the former; or rather, is but a continuation of the same church?’ p. 116. And are there no means to help our authors eye-sight? Yes; [Page 7]at the top of the same page he has helped mine, and I cant but hope to requite his kindness in the same way. I had quoted 2 Tim. 3.5, but was so short-sighted as to write, THE form of godliness, instead of A form. This he corrects, and says, ‘There is THE form of sound words, which we are to hold fast; and so THE form of divine service which God has instituted to be religiously observed, and not trifled with. And there is A form of godliness which man invents and sets up, and so not binding to christians, widely different from THE form which is of God.’

I heartly thank Mr. F. for this correction, and that for two reasons; one is because I am glad to get rid of my own mistakes; the other is because I hope to do him and others good by it, and for that end request attention to the follow­ing particulars.

• 1. THE form of sound words, calls the cove­nant that constituted Abraham's household into a church, The covenant of circumcision. Act. 7.8. But A form that man has invented calls it, The covenant of grace.
• 2 THE form of sound words, calls Abraham's two sons, with the mothers who bare them, an allegory of the TWO covenants, one of which the Jewish, the other the Christian church stood in. Gal. 4.22—31. But the words of mans invention, and which Mr. F. follows, say, ‘The covenant that made the Jews the church of God is essentially the same in all ages,’ p. 39.
• 3. The form of sound words shews that circumcision was a sign of Christ's death, and of an inward change, Col. 2.11. and that as Abraham had this change, and by faith [Page 8] saw and embraced ^* Christ before circumcision was instituted, it was a seal of the faith that he had, when he was in uncircumcision, Rom. 4.10, 11. But man's wisdom asserts that it was a seal to that church in general, tho' it is never called so in the sacred oracles.
• 4. From Abraham's faith in Christ, before circumcision and other rites of the law were appointed, the apostle proves that his title to be heir of the world, so that all believers should be called his children, was not thro' the Jewish covenant, but a better covenant, establish­ed upon better promises, Rom. 4.12, 13. Gal. 3.16, 17. Heb. 8.6. Yet Mr. F. holds both cove­nants to be essentially the same. He allows a circumstantial difference, and that the gospel dispensation is ‘more spiritual, simple, and free from outward ceremonies.’ p. 35. More spiritual as to ordinances, but carnal as ever in materials; for he declares that ‘There is no­thing in the constitution of this new covenant, that necessarily requires a change of the mate­rials of the church.’ p. 36. Tho' THE form of sound words, plainly makes so great change in the materials, as there is between the children of Abraham's flesh, and the children of God; and tells us that those of his seed which the Gentiles were grafted in among, were a remnant accord­ing to the election of grace; the rest being broken off because of unbelief, and those who stood, it was by faith, Rom. 9.8, and 11.5, 17, 20. There­fore,
• 5. The greatest difference between the cove­nant of circumcision, that God made with Abra­ham, and the new covenant which he made with [Page 9]his believing posterity, lay in the materials of the church. The first of his seed who was cir­cumcised was an unbeliever; and when that co­venant was renewed, and the ordinance of the passover was added, in the day that Israel came out of Egypt, there was also a precept given, that when a stranger would join with that church, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it. Exod. 12.48. But God says, the new covenant with the believing He­brews, is not according to the covenant he made with their fathers in that day; and the special excellency of this new covenant is, that all shall know him from the least to the greatest. Heb. 8.8—11. Here note; Ishmael did not know God tho' he was thirteen years old when he was con­stituted one of the materials of that church, but it would not have answered so well, to have placed the opposition there, because Abraham had no precept given him to admit strangers by housholds; that was given in the day they came out of Egypt. So that as I said before, I cannot conceive it possible, for words to express more plainly than these do, that there is an essential difference be­tween the materials, as well as the forms of the two churches.

And what has Mr. F. said against this? Why he has taken up much time to prove, that the covenant of grace was always the same, and that God has brought some to know him in all ages (which I never denied) and then he both adds to, and takes from the word of God; and by that time he has got so bewildered, as to deny his knowing any thing of what himself had transcrib­ed just above. This you will say is very strange. [Page 10]It is so, but no more strange than true. I have already proved that the word of truth calls the covenant which formed Abraham's houshold in­to a church, The covenant of circumcision; but Mr. F. takes this away, and adds the name grace to it, which is not put to it in the bible; and reasons upon it till he says, ‘As for any expli­cit act or prohibition, forbidding children to come (into the christian church with their believing parents) neither Mr. B. nor any other, that I know of, plead such a bar.’ p. 36. And yet he had transcribed in the same page, part of my plea of such a bar, because God ex­pressly says, the new covenant is not according to that which he made in the day wherein he first appointed such a practice. I am very sensible that children are freely called to come to Christ, and that 'tis a joyful thing to hear them cry, Hosanna to him, which implies faith in him as the Saviour; but I do plead an explicit prohibition against bringing them to baptism before they profess this faith. For the first administrator of baptism expressly required, fruits meet for repen­tance, and said to the Jews, Think not to say we have Abraham to our father. Mat. 3.8, 9. I am sensible that many will here tell us, that this respects men's coming upon a personal right. True it does so; but then it is an explicit testa­mony that baptism is not a token of the same co­venant that circumcision was; for that covenant took in all the men of Abraham's house so strict­ly, that if any one of them remained uncircum­cised, that soul should be cut off from his people. Gen. 17.14. Thus the covenant that constitu­ted that church, took in all the men of Abraham's [Page 11]house: and as the men of his house, were thus warned not to think of coming to baptism upon their father's right; and as the Hebrews were expressly told, that the new covenant is not ac­cording to the covenant that was made in the day that first opened a door for strangers to bring, their housholds upon their faith; if all this does not lay an explicit bar against such a practice, I desire to know what can lay one?

I shall now endeavour to consider all the force of Mr. Fish's arguments against this point, as distinctly as my capacity will admit of.

1. He endeavours to prove that this new co­venant is set in opposition to the Sinai law, which neither took in nor cast out children, and not to Abraham's covenant, which he says, "was a pure covenant of grace." p. 29. And that infants, ‘must certainly hold their place in the church, —unless by some special act of God, their pri­vilege is taken away; which is not to be pro­duced. Here then appears the fatal mistake of Mr. B. fatal to his cause.’ p. 32. Answer, if the taking away the name which the holy Ghost has given to that covenant, and adding that of pure grace to it; and applying Gal. 3.17. thereto, in which the apostle expressly refers to Abraham's justification by faith in Christ, before he took the bondwoman, by which he proves that the cove­nant of circumcision is now to cease when the seed Christ is come. Gen. 12.3, and 15.6. Gal. 3.6, 8, 16, 17. and 4.31. If these things be duly examined, I believe the fatal-mistake will be found to belong to his cause, and not mine: for this new covenant is set in opposition to what was done, in the day they came out of Egypt, [Page 12]more directly than to what was done at Sinai, months or years afterward.

2. Mr. F. quotes a number of texts out of the old testament which speak the language of grace, and then says, ‘I WILL and they SHALL, was ever the gracious word of God, or form of his covenant of grace; how then is this a bet­ter covenant, established upon better promises? as Mr. B. argues.’ p. 34. Answer, I have already observed, that the covenant of grace was always the same, and the language, I will and they shall, in Abraham's covenant, insured the continuance of the church in the line of his pos­terity, till THE SEED should come to whom the pro­mise was made. Gal. 3.19. but then all that be­lieved not in him, were broken off from the church of God.

3. Mr. F. grants this, but still will have it that the christian dispensation preserves the same ma­terials for kind, because the new covenant is made with Israel and Judah, p. 37. To which I reply, that I well know the gospel church was first con­stituted of believing Jews; the second covenant was made with them, but then the covenant was new, and so different from the first, that Christ took the first out of the way, nailing it to his cross, that he might establish the second: and has charg­ed us to beware lest any man, thro' philosophy and vain deceit, subject us to ordinances from those rudiments. Col. 2.8, 14, 20. Heb. 10.9.

4. Our author would have it, that the cove­nant is only circumstantially and not essentially new; to prove which he refers us to the law of love, which is essentially the same in all ages; yet our Lord calls it new. because he taught it more plainly, and pressed it by new motives, p. 35. [Page 13]I fully concur with his premises, but not with his consequence, for this new commandment is so far from being opposed to the old, that it is de­clared to be the old commandment which we had from the beginning. John 13.34. 1 John 2.7, 8. Whereas this new covenant is not according to the old one; and the difference is so great that the first of Abraham's sons, and multitudes of those who came after, were in their sins, and did not know God, when they were taken into covenant, but the subjects of this new covenant all know him, and have their sins forgiven.

5. Mr. F. holds this difference to be only gra­dual, and says, ‘In gospel times the blessings of this new covenant were to issue forth more abundantly.’ p. 35. But I answer, that the subject we are upon is, not the degree of things, but the nature of the church constitution; for he owns that ‘'tis the covenant that makes the church what it is.’ p. 39. I must therefore once more turn him to his own corrections, and observe, that THE form of the church which God has appointed says, They shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for ALL shall know me, from the LEAST to the greatest. Heb. 8.11. This is the covenant which Mr. F. says, makes the church what it is. And who is there that does not know, that the oracles of God which were the chief pri­vilege of the Jewish church, Rom. 3.2. were confined so much thereto, that before Christ had taken that covenant away, and nailed it to his cross, he expressly forbid his apostles to preach to any but those who were in it? yet after it was taken away he commanded them to teach all na­tions, [Page 14]and to preach the gospel to every creature, in order to bring such as were taught and believed, to baptism and into the church. Mat. 10.5, 6, and 28.19. Mark 16.15, 16. So that the greatest difference between these two covenants appears to be, that men must have a standing in the first, in order to have the free use of the means which ordinarily teach them to know God; while these means in a clearer light, are now freely used with all nations, in order to bring them in­to the second covenant; and that none come into the church aright but such as knew him before. And if any get in beside such as shall be saved, they do not come in by the door, but like thieves, climb up some other way, or creep in unawares: John 10.9. Gal. 2.4. Jude 4.

Here my opponant tries again to involve me in an absurdity, and says, ‘Whether they got in by creeping, flyly or boldly; thro' the care­lesness of the church, or with their consent and according to their judgment, it matters not in the present case; they are in the church: and so 'tis after all but a visible church, of the common stamp.’ p. 45. But where will tra­dition carry men! who ever thought that if a thief has but once got into the house, that would make void the law that forbids his coming there and what school is it that will teach, that those who take God's covenant into their mouths, if they once see that a thief IS IN, it is "no matter" if they then CONSENT with him! Psalm 50.16, 18.

However I must not forget that our author says, I mistook his meaning. He tells us that his book treats of the church in a large sense, but that I take the word in the most limited sense. [Page 15]This he insists much upon. p. 10, 15, 16, 23, 51. To which I reply, that the title of his book is, ‘The church of Christ a firm and durable house:’ and his first character of it is, ‘That Jesus Christ has but ONE church in the world, and that is the sums which it always was.’ I observed that the invisible church is so, but en­tered my exception against its being true of the visible church, which I took notice was what Mr. F. intended. Ex. p. 11. and whether the house be so large as he would make it or not, I thought was the main point of dispute between us; and to have first allowed it to be so large, and then to have tried to prove that it was not so, is a way that I never learned. Indeed he tells me, that my book "sufficiently proves" me not to be a learned man in their way. p. 126. and he also says, ‘Needful accomplishments of learning, can be judged of by none but such as are them­selves thus accomplished.’ p. 82. It seems then that I must refer it to the learned, whether the right way of disputing be for one to lay down a proposition, and for another to own it to be truth, and then try to prove that it is not so? and whether a master of arts would act in charac­ter or not, if he declared that the other, "dis­putes without an opponant, and talks entirly be­side the purpose." p. 16, only because he did not first allow that what he disputes against is truth!

Might I be indulged with the common privi­lege of English men, to be tried by my equals, I should not much fear the consequence; for as far as I am acquainted, people in towns endeavour to have their materials so framed, be­fore [Page 16]they are put into the house, that every joint may supply its place.^* And in new beginnings in the wilderness, where they build in the cours­est manner, I think their materials are all cut off from their natural stock, ^† before they are put into the house; and if a learned gentleman should tell those new beginners, that they ought to build their house so large, as to take in a good quantity of the young groth for future repairs; and one should attempt to convince him of his mistake, I hardly think the honest people would attribute their controversy to a mistake about the meaning of the word house.

I was so far from mistaking his meaning, that I took particular notice, that Mr. F. holds those who own the covenant, according to the synod in 1662, and all baptized children, to be mem­bers, so as to be under ‘the faithful authoritative watch and discipline of the church,’ Tho' I observed, that the talk of disciplining such in our day, was but empty words. Ex. p. 104. ^‡ But he says of that part of my book, that he could not see as I had touched his arguments with anything to the purpose, and therefore passes it over. p. 118. So I shall leave these matters with the reader, and close this head with the following queries.

• [Page 17]1. Can any person be built upon the Rock who does not hear Christ's sayings and do them? Mat. 7.24.
• 2. Is not this hearing and doing, the same with that believing and confessing which is unto salvation? Rom. 10.8, 10, 14.
• 3. Will not our Lord spue out of his mouth, every church, and every member that has not this faith and life? Rev. 3.16.
• 4. Can Noah, Daniel, Job or any other father, deliver and son or daughter from the gates of Hell who have it not? Ezek. 14.20. If not, then
• 5. How can any souls be fit materials of the church which those gates shall not prevail against, but such as believe in Christ with their hearts, and confess him with their mouths? This leads us to speak

II. Of the gospel manner of building churches.

I know Mr. F. says, ‘I have really nothing to do with Mr. B. upon this head; 'tis out of the question, as a particular church is not the church, which my sermons treat of.’ p. 51. It may therefore be needful to enquire into the following things.

1. Is any other visible church-state instituted in the gospel, but a particular one? The church spoken of by our Lord in Mat. 18.15,—18, is such an one as a brother can tell his grievance to; and whoever thought that could be to any other than a particular community? The seven churches of Asia are spoken to by their great Head, not as one national or provincial church, but as so many distinct churches, who are commended, or reproved by him, according as their works were, in each particular community. The church of [Page 18]Corinth was reproved, for neglecting to judge such as were within, and not those without their particular society. 1 Cor. 5.12. And if Mr. F. was not treating of a particular church, what means his talk of the privilege of the baptized, as being under her authoritive watch and discipline? In truth our fathers were not a little puzzled with this question. One of them that concurred with another who had gone before him, in resolving to have an argument able to remove a mountain, before he would recede from infant baptism; and was peremptory for bringing persons to own the covenant, in order to bring their children to baptism, who did not see their way clear to come up to full communion; yet he confessed himself not to be so peremptory whether they were baptized as in a catholic, or in a particular church-state. But after much labour between him and others of great note upon it, they con­cluded to rest the matter thus; ‘That we are to distinguish between a particular church, as it is more strictly taken for a particular corpo­ration of covenanting believers, entrusted by our Lord with the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and as it is more largely taken for that special part of our Lord's visible church, which doth subsist in this or that particular place.^*’ So that according to them, sub­sisting in a particular place entitled such as would own the covenant to baptism and discipline, while the power to dispense them belonged to the church more strictly taken. [Page 19]Mr. F. says, ‘This is what our separate brethren improperly called a half-way cove­nant.’ Ser. p. 92. If so his learned brethren have now got very openly into the same impro­priety. Dr. Bellamy has writen a number of pie­ces against it under that name; and a learned opponent of his says, ‘As to the half-way practice; I am in it, but not for it. I have no disposition to oppose the Dr. in his endea­vouring to break up that unscriptural practice; provided he will take the right course.^*’ The course that he would have taken to break up that practice, is for ministers not to require per­sons to profess a gracious state in order to come to the Lord's-supper; which brings us,

2. To enquire whether persons ought to pro­fess saving faith when they come into the church or not? Dr. Owen says, ‘We desire no more to constitute church members, and we can desire no less than what in a judgment of charity may comply with the union that is between Christ the Head and the church, 1 Cor. 12.27. Eph. 2.22. 1 Cor. 3.16, 17. 2 Cor. 11.1. 18. 1 Thes. 1.1. &c. that may in the same judgment answer the way of the beginning and increase of the church according to the will of God, who adds unto the church such as shall be saved. Acts 2.47. the rule of our receiving of them being because he hath receiv­ed them, Rom. 14.1, 2. that may answer that profession of faith which was the foundation of the church, which was not what flesh and blood, [Page 20]but what God himself revealed, Mat. 16.16. ^*’ The last of these scriptures is connected with Mr. Fish's text. To which I shall only add, that, tho' some in our day would have it, that believ­ing with all the heart, which was required of the Eunuch in order for baptism, meant something short of saving faith; yet Paul says, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom. 10.9. Note, he that believes in his heart, shall be saved; how daring then is it for any to argue that, a believ­ing with all the heart, can mean any lower kind of faith!

3. How is this faith to be confessed? The foregoing scriptures and many more shew, that it was with the mouth or verbally; tho' many would have it to be general and not particular: to prove which the Eunuch's declaration is some­times produced. Not observing, that Philip had immediate teaching from heaven to go to him, and got well acquainted with his soul-exercises before this confession; nor the vast difference there is between saying, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, now when a man would expose himself in the world to say the contrary; to what it was then, when that truth was so much denied. Saints are often called God's witnesses; and who does not know, that the general tes­timony from such is not ordinarily enough, but men want to hear in particular, how [Page 21]they came to the knowledge of what they testify? Hence, tho' Peter had immediate direction from above to go to Cornelius, yet when he came he would have from his mouth an account how he came to send for him. And when the church at Jerusalem wanted satisfaction of Peter about that matter, he did not turn them off with a general declarati­on, that the holy Ghost sent him, and owned him; tho' he had a much better claim to be credited by that church, than common persons now have to be credited by a church they would join with: but instead of turning them off with generals, Peter rehearsed the matter from the be­ginning, and expounded it by order unto them. Acts: 11.4. And as our Lord has commanded his disciples, not to give holy things to unholy crea­tures, and to beware of false prophets, saying, ye shall know them by their fruits. Mat. 7.6, 15, 16. so he has explained those fruits to be, what is brought forth out of the heart by speaking. Luk. 6.45. and John says, That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us. And do not these things sufficiently prove that the gospel method of pro­fessing our faith, is by a particular declaring of it with our mouths?

4. To whom is the declaration to be made? Mr. F. refers us to a clause in Cambridge pla­form where they say, in case of ‘excessive fear,— 'tis sufficient that the elders, having received private satisfaction, make relation thereof in public before the church.’ p. 51. But as he had spent the four preceding pages, in trying to prove that one of our fathers "worst mistaker." [Page 22]was their allowing the brotherhood too much pow­er; I believe I ought to be allowed a little room there to prove, that in this case they did not allow them enough. For there is no point more expressly forbidden by our Lord, than for ministers to as­sume a power like civil rulers. Mat. 20.25—27. Mark 10.42—44. Luke 22.25—27. ^* Yet where are the civil judges that are allowed the power to examine witnesses in private, and then to read or relate their restimony in public, with­out giving full liberty to all who are concerned, to hear and examine the witnesses themselves! Will "excessive fear" excuse witnesses in earthly [Page 23]courts? if not, what a shame is it to pretend that any are fit to be received as God's witnesses, who can't tell before their brethren something of what they know concerning the truth and love! As to a relation of experiences, before all the con­gregation, which was our fathers common prac­tice, and is often of great benefit; yet I insist not on that for every one; but before the church I think none ought to be received without it. In the epistle to all the saints at Rome, members as well as officers, they were required to receive him that was in the faith tho' weak; and to re­ceive one another as Christ received them. Rom. 1.7. and 14.1. and 15.7. And how can that be done without hearing of them? yet don't mis­take me; what I plead for a relation of (as pre­sident Edwards said) are the great things wherein godliness consists, and not the persons opinion of his own good estate.^* We come,

III. To consider of the gospel method of or­ganizing churches.

[Page 24] Our author in his sermons tells us, that Christ did not go to colleges or schools of learning for his first ministers, but that 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. Yet now since the canon of scripture is compleated, he says, ‘It must be but a fond conceit, a remark without reason, judgment or truth—to say, The Lord is now raising up and sending forth,—unlearn­ed and ignorant men.’ And he represents all such as going ‘without any warrant or call from the King of Zion,’ and compares them to Sceva's sons. Acts 19.15, 16.

But of them that are furnished with knowledge and understanding, he says, ‘Such men being found, and presenting themselves, with a hum­ble and serious desire to engage in the work (1 Tim. 3.1.) the apostle farther directs and charges, that they shall have the work of the ministry committed to them by authorized hands, even by officers already in the church.’ &c. In reference to which, as I came across his use of the word extraordinary in another case, I inserted a note upon the great things that were done by that word, and said, ‘The power of Christ in qualifying men for ministry, without going to colleges for them, is hereby limitted to the apostles days; and all are rejected with con­tempt by Mr. F. who do not receive their gifts at college, and their authority from authorized hands, p. 15—17, and these authorized hands, by the help of this word have got such an [Page 25] extraordinary power as the apostles never had. For the apostles were only witnesses for Christ, and as such pointed out to the church, what qualifications officers should have, and said, Brethren look ye out among you such men. Acts 1.8. and 6.3. But these pretended suc­cessors of the apostles, assume a power to limit the church, in her choice to such as they have approbated; which I trust will be made evident to be a power which the apostles never had.’ Ex. p. 24, 25.

The reader may note, that here I spake of the qualifying, approbating, and choice of officers; but Mr. F. passes over what I said, and pre­sumes to tell what I meant: for he says, ‘'tis evident Mr. B. there means a power of or­daining officers in the church.’ And so fix­ing upon what I neither said nor meant in that place, he accuses me with ‘keeping back the principal words in the text, as it relates to the present question:’ and with affirming that the apostles, "never had power to ordain;"—with a ‘presumptuous handling of the holy scriptures, and a daring corrupting of the sense of them,’ &c. p. 65, 66. The way he takes to try to prove that I meant what I did not express, is to tell the reader that I refer to a page in his book that treats of ordination; as if I had referred to but one page; whereas my re­ference was exactly as I have now laid it before the reader, who will judge whether I have injured the truth or not, since the apostles only describ­ed what those officers qualifications and work should be, and then called the church to look them out; and the church did so, and they set [Page 26]those whom they had looked out, before the a­postles. But the modern method is, for such as desire to be ministers, humbly to present themselves before officers to be approbated; and the church is limited, in her choice of ministers, to such candidates.

This Mr. F. cannot deny, but after saying much upon it, he comes to these words; ‘Al­though we think the affair of examination and judging of the qualifications of candidates for the ministry, is committed to the ministers, by the Head of the churches, yet we neither arrogate it wholly to ourselves, as Mr. B. char­ges, i. e. so as to exclude the people from try­ing and judging and choosing for themselves; nor do we ever pretend to impose upon them, those whom we examine and approbate.’ p. 82. Reply: What I charged them with, he is here forced to own; and though his mind was so intent upon ministerial power, as not to men­tion the churches choice, in the page which he says treats of ordination, yet I did not suppose that he excluded the people from a choice a­mong their candidates; and to say I charge them therewith, is what I deny, and let him prove it if he can. This art of slipping in something which does not belong to the case in hand, to prevent its appearing in its true light, is a dreadful part of the learning of our world. Not only so, but he has also proved himself in­excusably guilty of the same thing that he unjust­ly charged upon me; namely, of keeping back principal words of scripture, on which the present question depended. For when I produced our Lord's commendation of the church of Ephe­sus, [Page 27]Rev. 2. to prove that it is the churches work to try ministers, Mr. F. says, ‘These words were spoken to and of the angel or minister of the church.’ p. 81. And keeps back those important words, that the epistle is, What the SPIRIT saith UNTO THE CHURCHES. What a ‘daring and manifest corrupting of the holy scripture is here!’

So when I observed that in Paul's day, letters of commendation were to and from the church; but proved that some ministers in our land claim a power like civil rulers, contrary to the express command of Christ, and then said, If ministers would leave their worldly comparisons, and attend wholly to divine rule, I believe they would find that it belongs to the church with them to try ministers. Ex. p. 40, 41. Yet Mr. F. takes much pains to make the reader believe that I don't hold so, and at last says of the Corinthian church, ‘If letters of commendation went from them or came to them, 'twill be hard for Mr. B. to prove that the brotherhood and not the ministers, gave and received them’ p. 83. I was so far from saying Not the ministers, that I said The church with them; and if men under a pretence of learning may thus change our words from with to not, what will they not do to serve their own turn!

From approbation we now come to ordination; and I observe that the grand point wherein he accuses me with perverting scripture is my saying the apostles were only witnesses; ‘which (says he) every one knows are persons that act in a very different character from those who appoint, set [Page 28]and six in a station or office.’ p. 66. Answer 1. It is so in earthly states; tho' by the way, 'tis as well known, that in such states all office-power is originally derived from the people; and in the Massachusetts, if not in other provinces, com­mon towns have power, when they have elected their officers, to invest them therewith, by their moderators giving them their oaths, before the meeting is dissolved; and would he place the church of Christ beneath our common towns?

Answer 2. Our Lord himself told his apostles, that they should receive power, after the holy Ghost came upon them; and that they should be witnesses unto him, both in Jerusalem, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. Acts 1.8. And in after times he speaks of giving power unto his witnesses, and they shall prophesy. Rev. 11.3, 6. Therefore let our author and others consider well, where men have got to, who plead for power to "act-in a character very different from" that which the Son of God gave to his apostles, and to later ministers. The gift of God which Timo­thy received by the putting on of Paul's hands, and which he was called to stir up, was not the spirit of fear, but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND. A power to keep him from being ashamed of the TESTIMONY of our Lord, or of his suffering servants. A power to hold fast the form of sound words in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus, at a time when many turned away from that cause. 2 Tim. 1.6—8, 13—15. This pow­er keeps Christ's ministers from fainting, and enables them to renounce the hidden things of dis­honesty, not walking in CRAFTINESS, nor handling the word of God DECEITFULLY, but by manifesta­tion [Page 29]of the TRUTH, commending themselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And any minister who has not a measure of this power, if he could have as many bishops or presbyters, to lay their hands upon him, as could stand betwixt here and Jerusalem, they could not make it the duty of any soul to obey him as a minister of Christ. What we are called to is to obey the truth; and so far as ministers hold forth the truth by word and example, it is an important duty to obey and follow them; yea to esteem them highly in love for their works sake. Gal. 3. 1. Phil. 3.17.1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.7, 17. And those who despise such, despise him that sent them. Luke 10.16.

But to have men's persons in admiration because of advantage is an evil way; even tho' it were the person of an apostle or an angel from heaven. Gal. 1.9. Jude 16. And as all true religion has its seat in the hearts and consciences of men, from whence it flows out into their lives and conduct; so Joshua when he had laid open the truth to Israel, said, if it seems evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve. And Jesus Christ said to the Jews, Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right. And Paul said to the Christians, I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say. Hence it is referred to every conscience, whether we can justly view the apos­tles in any other light, than as being Christ's witnesses and the churches servants. 2 Cor. 4.5. pointing out to the church what was to be done; who having chosen their officers, and set them before them, that the apostles in consequence of the churches act, laid hands on them, and were [Page 30]the churches mouth to heaven for a blessing on said officers. I think this idea is confirmed by what Peter says of himself; for when writing to elders, he stiles himself also an elder, and a wit­ness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. From whence he exhorts the elders of churches, to feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples of the flock.

Now you may remember that Dr. Owen (as quoted a little back) tells us, that the utmost pretence and defence of the Romanists, to secure their dominion is, That it is not dominion ab­solutely that is forbidden, but the unlawful ty­ranical exercise of power. And I before refer­red Mr. F. to one of his brethren in the same county with him, and a trustee of one of the col­leges, that he would limit Christ's church to for ministers, who asserts, that the rights conveyed by the keys, and belonging to the eldership only, are ‘As distinct as the rights of a magistrate are from those of a private freeman, in a civil community. These rights are connected with, and inherent in the office of the elder­ship. —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.—For—'tis not possible they should be in danger of abusing a power they never had.^*’ Which shews us, that all the diffe­rence [Page 31]between Roman catholics, and some New-England presbyterians', as to their pleas for pow­er is, The catholic pleads that the scripture for­bids, only their tyranical use of lordly power; and the presbyterian pleads that what is forbidden is the abuse of it. And according to both, Peter mistook the case when he said, Not as lords; for he ought to have said, Not as tyrants! and so they are the reverse of the apostles, who spake not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual. 1 Cor. 2.13. For these late plea­ders for power, speak not in the words which the holy Ghost teacheth, but in those which man's wis­dom teacheth; comparing Christ's heavenly king­dom to earthly states, directly in the face of his word.

Our author imagines that as our excellent fa­thers, ‘had indeed felt the severities of a usurp­ed power at home, the power of the clergy, it endangered the other extreme.—Here they abate to themselves the power which Christ their Lord had given them, in the point of ordination.’ p. 46. But when all is said and done, can it be more certain that three and two make five, than it is, that if the power of ordina­tion is only in officers, then he must have an un­interrupted succession of such ordinations, down from the apostles, or else he has not a right ordi­nation himself? To try to cover the matter with don't knows is to go back into the church which holds ignorance as the mother of devotion. As in the jewish church the priesthood was limited to one line, so I produced an instance, of such as the sacred historian allows to be children of the [Page 32] priests; yet because they could not find the regis­ter of their genealogy, they were as polluted, put from the priesthood. Ezra 2.62. which I thought was to the point in hand; but Mr. F. starts off, and will not own that he held forth an uninterrup­ted line; only that Christ has always supplied his church with able ministers according to his promise (and who denied that?) Then from an old book he mentions the names of some in each century; and I observe that baptists ministers will do as wellas any, if people do not know them to be such. For in the 12th century, beside others he says, ‘Were Peter Bruis and his scho­lar Henry of Tholouse, two famous preachers against popish errors.’ p. 25. So it seems, and one of those popish errors was infant baptism; for Dr. Wall, one of their greatest writers for that practice, say of these two men, that they were, ‘The first antipedobaptists preachers, that ever set up a church, or society of men, holding that opinion against infant baptism, and re­baptized such as had been baptized in infan­cy.^*’ Yet many of our ministers even to this day, will dare to tell their people, That the first baptists in the world, were those of Mun­ster, four hundred years afterward!

To sum up this matter; if Mr. F. has not a register to shew, of an uninterrupted succession of ministerial ordinations clear from the apostles, I leave him and all to consider, whether, accord­ing [Page 33]to the plain scripture example which ash been produced, he ought not, either as polluted to be put from the ministry, or else own him­self to have been unjust in blaming, both our fathers and us, for holding the power of ordina­tion to be in the church? I proceed to consider

IV. Of the difference between civil and eccle­siastical government.

In opening the constitution of those which Mr. F. calls standing churches, I produced ma­ny facts, to shew how civil and ecclesiastical af­fairs have been confounded together in our coun­try; which has done amazing mischief, and was the worst mistake that our fathers brought to this land. I fully declared for a harmony between the church and state, but against such a union be­tween them, as has been practised among us. Ex. p. 23.

In reply Mr. F. blames me much for not let­ting these matters rest as our fathers had left them, while yet he has not the courage to justify all their conduct, nor to run the line, or fix the bound between the two powers, better than they did; and says, "This is too delicate an affair "for me to attempt." p. 56. Then he goes on to prove, what I never in the least denied, that the Jewish church and state were united, while yet their acts as to civil polity, and religi­ous worship, were kept distinct. p. 56.57. Yet from this and some other things he tries to con­fute, or else to confound me.

Two things therefore appear necessary here to be considered; which are, how the civil rulers in Israel did behave toward the church, and what the difference is betwixt us and them.

[Page 34] First, how did Israel's civil rulers behave to­ward the church? This may be answered in two branches.

1. As to a place and furniture for worship. Tho' their great Lawgiver could, had he seen fit, as exactly have proportioned each man's part of the expence, as to have given the pattern of what was to be made; yet instead of that, after giving notice of what was wanted, he said, Who­soever is of a willing heart, let him bring an Off­ring unto the Lord, gold, silver, &c. Exod. 35.5. And when their costly temple was to be built. David like a nursing father, led the way, and of his own proper goods, offered very largely; and then exhorted his people to do the like; which had such effect, as caused him with grateful won­der to say. ‘As for me in the uprightness of my heart I have willingly offered all these things; and now have I seen with joy, thy people which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee.’ 1 Chron. 29.3, 17.

Who can fail to observe, that here it appears, both in the provision that was made for the ta­bernacle, and for the temple, that what was done was offered to the Lord, and that, as each one found a willing heart, without any prescribing or compelling in either case? Indeed half a shekel was prescribed for each man to offer, to make attonement for his soul, in which the rich should not give more, nor the poor less. Exod. 30.15. Importing that all souls are of equal value; which money was for the service of the tabernacle. And when the temple needed repair­ing in after times, the king said to the priests, all this money, and all the money that cometh into [Page 35]any mans heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it, every man of his acquain­tance, and let them repair the breaches of the house. 2 Kings, 12.4, 5. But they being ne­gligent of their duty, the king reproved them for it; and at his commandment they prepared a chest, and sat it in the gate of the house, and made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusa­lem, to bring in to the Lord the collection that Moses commanded. And all the princes, and all the people rejoiced, and brought in and cast into the chest in abundance. 2 Chron. 24.6, 8—11. This was their method, as to the place of worship, and

2. Concerning the support of those who mi­nistred in it; we find that the great land-lord and proprietor of all things, enjoined it upon Is­rael, to offer him the first fruits, and also the tenth of all their increase, to be a provision for his ministers, for the stranger, fatherless and widow; which they were to offer as they would expect a continuance, and a blessing on his land. Levit. 18.9—13. Deut. 26.1—15. Those also who ministred at the altar, were to partake with it. Levit. 6.16—26.1 Cor. 9.13.

And we find in the reformation in Hezekiah's time, that he first stired up those ministers to their duty, and then the people to give them their portion, that they might be encouraged in their work; and as soon as his commandment came abroad, the children of Isarel brought in abundance. 2 Chron. 31.2—5. And after the Jews return from captivity, they were very parti­cular in their covenant concerning these matters; and, when they neglected to act accordingly, Nehemiah contended with them, and stirred them [Page 36]up to their duty. Neh. 10.32—39. and 13.10—12. Afterwards the Lord by his prophet, charged them with robbing him in these things, and declares that he had cursed the whole nation therefor: but calls them to return unto him, and bring in the stores so that their might be meat in his house, and to prove him therewith, if he would not pour them out such a blessing, that they should not have room enough to receive it. Mal. 3.7—10. All which very clearly shew, that both rulers and prophets, endeavoured each in their place, to stir up the priests and Levites to do their duty in the house of God, and to stir up the people to do their part, both toward his house, and towards those who ministred therein; but I cannot find that rulers were ever allowed, much less required, to use any force to bring any to it. We have many accounts of their inflict­ing corporal punishments in other affairs, but not in this.

Secondly, What is the difference between the Jewish state and ours? I answer

1. The laws of their state, were made by infallible authority; ours are but the ordinances of fallible men. 1 Pet. 2.13.

2. As God was the King of that state, idolatry was treason against him as such; hence his laws were most strict, that if a brother, the wife of their bosom, or a friend that was as their own soul, should secretly entice them to serve other gods, they should not only refuse to consent; but says God, Thou shalt surely kill him. And if they found that one of their cities had thus turned away. [...] [...]bitants of that city with [...] [Page 37]Deut. 13.6, 9—15. But the King of Zion says, My Kingdom is not of this world; which he gave as the reason why his servants should not fight, to prevent his being delivered into the hands of his enemies. John 18.36. And his laws allow of some sort of company with idolaters of this world; and if a brother in the church be found guilty of this crime, christians are only required to come out and be separate from such company. 1 Cor. 5.10, 11.2 Cor. 6.17.

3. If Israel would set up a king over them, it must be from among their brethren, and says God, Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Deut. 17.15. But it was in obedience to a decree from Caesar, (a stranger and an idolater) that Joseph with Mary came to Bethlehem, when Jesus was born, Luke 2.1, 7. And when the Jews asked Jesus, if it was lawful to give tribute to such a ruler? his answer was, Render unto Caesar, the things which are Caesars; and unto God, the things that are Gods. Mat. 22.21. And his gospel expressly allows, the sword to execute wrath upon evil do­ers, in civil states. Rom. 13.4. Whereas the foundation and support of Christ's Kingdom is TRUTH. John 18.36, 37. And tho' his servants walk in the flesh, yet they are not to war after the flesh; for their weapons are not carnal. 2 Cor. 10.3, 4. Were this difference between church and state justly viewed, it would obviate the objecti­on that some make, against any use of the carnal weapon at all, as well as prevent others abusing of it about religion as many do: For,

4. In the Jewish state the priests sentence had [Page 38] liberty; and such as he pronounced utterly un­clean, must be had away without the camp. Levit. 13.1—46. And by his sentence a man might dwell in his own house or not; yea by it, a house must be broken down, and its materials carried without the city. Levit. 14.44, 45. And their power went so far as to thrust a king out of the temple when he appeared to be unclean. 2 Chron. 26.20. But what awful tyranny, yea hellish cruelty, has been practised under the christian name, by the priestcraft of those who have confounded the Jewish and christian consti­tutions together! Tho' if we view them in their distinct light; the high priest was an evident type of Him who has the key of David, that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth. Rev. 3.7. And the other priests were types of the lively materials of which his house is built. 1 Pet. 2.5. And by the sentence of our great high priest, a house or church, which will not be cleansed or reformed, is taken down or remov­ed out of its place. Rev. 2.5. And by the same power will our earthly tabernacle be dissolved. 2 Cor. 5.1—4.

And as the apostles were inspired to publish his gospel, they restored to men the key of know­ledge which blind guides had taken away. Mat. 23.13. Luke. 11.52. And were instruments of opening a door of faith unto the gentiles. Acts 14.27. And by the same authority they gave rules for receiving members into Christ's church; and by his power the church of God at Corinth, called to be saints, were required, when they were gathered together, to put away from among them­selves a wicked person. 1 Cor. 1.2. and 5.4, 13. [Page 39]and their obedience thereto was a punishment in­flicted of many. 2 Cor. 2.6. And not a word of its being a work done only by officers. Diotrephes who assumed such a power to himself, when an apostle wrote unto the church; his prating and malice therein is exposed, for a warning to all after ages. 3 John 9.10.

Ministers, as distinct from other saints, are never called priests in the new-testament; there­fore the power of the ancient priests to govern in the house of God, is an argument for, and not against the government of Christ's house, being in the church as a body. In all civil govern­ments, from the greatest empires to our common families, some have power to judge for others, which power others ought to submit to; but our Lord has most plainly forbidden, either the assu­ming or submitting to any such thing in religion. Luke 22.25—27. Truth is ever to be submit­ted to, tho' bad men deliver it; but we are for­bidden to call any man on earth master or father. Mat. 23.1—9. Ministers should be burning and shining lights, and rule the church as the sun rules the day, by holding forth light and heat, to direct and quicken men in their walk and work. This is to be done by word and and example. Mat. 5.14—16. Heb. 13.7, 8, 17. And dreadful will be the case of all souls who disobey such rule and influence; but even women are called to look to it, that they receive not ANY teacher of a contrary character, as they would escape a partaking of his evil deeds. 2 John 8.11.

Once more,

5. The same birth that brought a Jew into the world, brought him also into the church, even [Page 40]so that if a conformity to its ordinances was ne­glected, he must be cut off from his people. Gen. 17.14. Num. 9.13. And if he or a stranger blasphemed God's name or committed adultry, they must surely be put to death. Levit. 20.10, 11. and 24.16. But the gospel only requires. excommunication for such crimes, if impenitent, and forgives and receives such persons, when penitent. Mat. 12.31. John 8.11.1 Cor. 5.1. 2 Cor. 2.7.1 Tim. 1.13, 20. And though Christ sows nothing but good seed where ever his gospel comes, yet he knew how the devil would do the contrary; and also how his own servants would be in danger of acting toward the tares, the children of the wicked one, when they appear­ed among his children; therefore he stated this case in a parable, and then explained it to his disciples, to let them know, that the order of the kingdom of heaven is, to let both grow together in the world till the end of it. Mat. 13.24—30, 37—39. Yet how dreadfully have these orders been violated in our land!

I produced many instances of violent methods that were taken, with such as would not conform to, nor support the parish ministers. Mr. F. now says, It is quite injurious for me to charge these things upon ministers or churches; and says, ‘Whether those prosecutions he speaks of, were fact, or if fact, whether right or not (which is not my business here to determine) it matters not in the present case: 'tis evident they are the doings of the civil authority, and of that ALONE.’ p. 56, 59.

On which I would remark

• 1. That ministers influence in those affairs is too well known, by [Page 41]rulers and people, to admit this assertion for truth.
• 2. What Mr. F. has discovered thro' his book, leaves no room to think that he would have left these facts undisputed, if he could have found any ground to dispute upon.
• 3. If it was not his business to have endea­voured to determine whether those prosecutions were right or not, what business had he to blame me for exposing them? Nay, he does try to justify them; for the rules concerning the ma­gistrates power in matters ecclesiastical, which were laid down by former ministers, he now declares with "judgment and excellency of spirit;" p. 59. and the prosecutions referred to, were exactly according to the spirit of them rules, as I shall have further occasion to shew to him.
• 4. To avoid the name of using force to sup­port religion, he calls the contracts made with minister's civil covenants, and the proceedings of the civil state to collect the same, ‘acts of the civil state done for its own utility.’ p. 56.

I observed that the offerings of the people, out of which ancient ministers were fed, were as dif­ferent from civil contracts, as their own houses were from the temple. Ex. p. 79. Mr. F. says, my consequence is false: and to prove it, he in­stances in the contract of a people with a work­man to build or repair a meeting-house, which he observes is for religious worship, yet the con­tract is intirely of a civil nature; and after some reasonings upon it he says, ‘Let the service done, be what it will, spiritual, civil or secular, 'tis solely the consideration in the covenant that denominates it. If the consideration be money [Page 42]or worldly substance, 'tis a civil covenant; in that the material cause of it, is worldly property, and is under the care of the civil state.’ p. 94. And after citing several passages concerning the Jewish worship he says, ‘Had not those cove­nants, which required a certain sum, viz. tithes and offerings for the Lord's ministers, been of a civil or political nature, what right or authority would those civil rulers, Moses and Nehemiah, have had to intermeddle with them; to reprove and correct the people for breaking or neglecting them; and on the whole, to oblige them to render to priests and Levites their due.’ p. 96.

Answer

• 1. As one if not both of them, were prophets, as well as rulers, and as all the people were required, in any wise to rebuke their neigh­bour, and not suffer sin upon him. Levit. 19.17. Is it not surprising to hear a professed minister of the word, ask what right Moses and Nehemiah had to reprove people, unless it were in things civil and political!
• 2. The instance that eh brings of Moses, is a reproof, not of the people, but of the priests, for neglecting their duty in the priests office. p. 96; and if that was political, how came Mr. F. to say of the Jews, ‘Their civil & religious officers were different setts of men, performing different services, and maintaining as distinct authority in their respective provinces, as now takes place, or SHOULD DO, in congre­gational churches and civil communities.’ p. 56. I have before produced instances, both of kings and prophets, reproving and stirring up, priests and people, each to their respective duties concerning religious worship; but does that make, either its performance, or its support to [Page 43]be political matters?
• 3. The instance for illus­tration which our author brings is not to the purpose; for a man or a society have right to contract with what workmen they please, to build a house to meet in for worship, and upon such terms as they can agree upon, which contract has the same force with other civil engagements; and there is no more of the nature of religion in the stones and timber of the meeting-house, nor in the workmen's hewing and placing of them, than there is in other houses. But will Mr. F. hold it to be so with his bodily exercise, when he "reads, writes, visits, prays or preaches?" p. 94. If he, or any other minister, will honestly own, that their exercise and labour in those things, has no more of the nature of religion in it, than there is in a carpenter or mason's building a meet­ing-house; and if people will then contract with them for a certain sum, to perform such exercise, let them pay it: but then call them political mi­nisters, and not ministers of Christ. If the consi­deration and material cause in the covenant, be­tween a minister and his people be, (as he asserts) worldly property, they deserve no better name.

Men have liberty to teach their sons what trade they think best; and their sons, when of age, have liberty to follow that or other business, as people will employ them, and they can find the best pay; but no man in the Jewish church might be a priest except he were called of God, as was Aaron. And the means of their support, as has been already shewn, were offered and consecrated to God. And no Israelite could make an accep­table prayer, for God to bless, either his people or the land he had given them, unless the man could say, I have brought away the hallowed things out [Page 44]of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless and widow, according to all THY COMMANDMENTS. Deut. 26.13—15. Note, he must be able to say, I have brought, and also have given; not, others have taken what I could keep no longer. Those who said, Thou shalt give it me now, and if not, I will take it by force, acted under priests who were sons of Beliel, whose sin was very great before the Lord; for men abhorred the offering of the Lord. 1. Sam. 2.12—17. And their father told them the difference, between this and common injustice, saying, "If one man sin against ano­ther, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? ver. 25.

Is it possible for any words to distinguish more plainly than these do, the difference between civil judge's work, and these religious affairs? Unjust dealings of one man against another are sins against God, and he has armed the magistrate with the sword to redress such wrongs; but the affairs of worship, both as to officers and people, lie directly between Him and them. And it is but lip service, when their fear toward him is taught by the pre­cept of men. Yea it is vain worship, and only a pretence, by which they would cover injustice and cruelty toward others. Isa. 29.13. Mat. 15.5—9. and 23.14.

When great stores had been brought in by the people, in Hezekiah's time, he, in conjuction with the chief ruler of the temple, gave orders to secure them and appointed men to oversee and dis­tribute the same, according to the divine com­mandment. 2 Chron. 31.11, 13—21. And [Page 45]who can say any thing against rulers doing the like now?

But what is there in all this, to favor their as­sessing the people to support ministers, and using force to collect it? Indeed my opponent does not like this word, and the facts that I related agreable to it, he calls "horrible things." p. 111. And he chuses the more soft and ambiguous word, oblige. p. 63, 96. Tho' if he had felt the effect of it as much as we have, I am persuaded that force, and violence added to the end of it, would appear to him mild enough to set their conduct in its true light.

I before declared, that the scripture is abun­dantly clear for a free support of ministers, but not a forced one; and observed, that there is as much difference between them, as there is between the power of truth in the mind, and the power of the sword on the body. Ex. p. 27. Mr. F. is so far from concurring with that obser­vation, that he says, I corrupted the sense of Mat. 11.5, only because I said, We used to think the gospel was preached freely to the poor. The word freely, he says, is not in the text. p. 64. I did not say, it was expressed there, but in the preceeding page I had quoted Christ's orders to his ministers, Freely ye have received, freely give. Mat. 10.8, 14. Ex. p. 24, 25. which I conclu­ded they obeyed: but Mr. F. would have it, that these orders had no reference to preaching, but only to working miracles. p. 61. and the word freely he says, ‘Is a capital word in the present dispute; the controversy in this place turns upon it.’ p. 64, 65. So it does; and where he will turn to save his scheme I know not; [Page 46]for he had declared, that the false apostles gloried in preaching freely, to prove which he brought 2 Cor. 11.12. But I attempted to shew that their glorying was in things of another nature; that as Paul, when he first came to Corinth, wrought at tent-making, on weak days, and preached on the sabbath, not with enticing words of man's wisdom: they commended themselves, and said of him, His bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Ex. p. 25. This interpreta­tion Mr. F. dislikes; and in order to prove that the false apostles gloried in preaching freely, he has fully proved that the true apostle did so; and if he could have brought the text to say, Wherein WE glory, instead of, wherein THEY glory, it would have answered his end; but that was beyond his power. p. 66, 69. Therefore I think the argument stands thus: Mr. F. says, Christ's order to his apostles, Freely give, had no reference to preaching, and that I corrupted a text, by saying, We thought they preached so; yet Mr. F. has clearly proved that a true apostle did glory in preaching freely, but has failed of proving any such thing of the false ones!

The reason he gives for confining the word freely to working miracles, in Christ's order to his first ministers, is because he says, The workman is worthy of his meat; and, the labourer is worthy of his hire; which words, workmen and labourer, are in other places used concerning common mi­nisterial labours, where no miracles are in questi­on. Be it so, yet 'tis nothing to his purpose, for the verse he quotes which says, The labourer is worthy of hire, also describes how they should come at it, namely, by receiving such things as [Page 47]they give. Luke 10.7. And the texts that he adds with our fathers comments thereon, all speak the same language. 1 Cor. 9.9—14. which says, Even so hath the Lord ordained; refers to ancient ministers being maintained out of the offerings of the people. And Gal. 6.6, says, Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good-things. Not let the collector take it, if he will not give it. Next they cite a passage which says, As God hath prospered him. What is to be done as God hath prospered him? answer, a collection of liberality for the saints at Jerusalem. 1 Cor. 16, 1—3. These are our ministers proofs for not being maintained by free gift; to which they add Neh. 13.11. to prove that ‘when the church power cannot attain the end, the magistrate is to see that the ministry be duly provided for.’ p. 63. The text shews that Nehemiah used reproofs and expostulations in the affair; and the effect was this: Then bro't all Judah the tithe. All Judah were their own collectors; and it proves clearly, that Nehemiah used his influence by reproof, instruction and good example, to move both ministers and peo­ple, faithfully to discharge their respective duties in religion: and Oh that all rulers, and subjects too, would do the like!

But, say our ministers, it is a due debt, therefore if the people will not pay it, the magistrate is to interpose and oblige them to do it. p. 63. Answer, both ministers and people owe their all to God, and when they have done all that he has com­manded, they ought to realize and acknowledge, that they are unprofitable servants. He has plain­ly described in his word, both what ministers, and [Page 48]what people are to do, relating to his worship; and says to each, I know thy works. And with him we have to do. Heb. 4.13. And when he says, Let him that is taught in the word, communi­cate to him that teacheth in all good things; to enforce it he says, Be not deceived, GOD IS NOT MOCKED; for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap. Gal. 6.6—7.

It is in vain to mince the matter. I am as sensible as Mr. F. is, that the body is much exer­cised in ministerial labours, and that God has commanded his people to communicate to them of their carnal things; yet the obedience of both, is what they owe to God, who can either prosper or blast them as he pleases; yea, can this night require the soul of him who layeth up treasure for HIMSELF, and is not RICH TOWARDS GOD. Luke 12.20—21. And if money or worldly property, be the consideration in the covenant between any minister and his people, what are they doing but sowing to the flesh? therefore be not deceived.

The sum of the matter is evidently this. All orders of men ought to do what they can in their several stations to promote religion, by speaking and practising the truth in love, but have no war­rant to use any force therein: the exact limits between ecclesiastical and civil government being this, That the church is armed with light and truth, to pull down satan's strong holds, and gain souls to Christ, and into his church, to be gover­ned by his rules therein; and again to exclude such from their communion, who will not be so governed: while the state is armed with the sword to guard the peace, and civil rights of all [Page 49]persons and societies, and to revenge and execute wrath on those who violate the same.

And if none but Sons of Beliel ever presumed, even under the legal dispensation, so far to inter­fere between God and his people, about support­ing ministers, as to say, if you will not give it I will take it by force; how great must their blind­ness be, who can presume to do so, under the dispensation which is purely evangelical! And I earnestly beseech my dear countrymen, to consi­der how inexcusable we shall appear in judging, if we continue to do, not the same but worse things, than we condemn in others!

How much have our rulers, ministers and peo­ple, complained of oppression, because of the at­tempts that have been made, against the right of giving our money, either by ourselves or our representatives, to support government! but if the right thus to give it, is essential to liberty in civil government, where force belongs (as I believe it is) what oppression must it be, to deprive any of the liberty of giving their money freely to pro­mote religion, where force has no place at all! And as we have proved it to be contrary to our Lord's commandment, to call any man on earth master or father, it being impossible for us to con­stitute another to answer for us at his bar; there­fore we connot convey a right to a representative to compel any person, either to attend, or to sup­port a worship contrary to his conscience. And our fathers example in these things, will condemn, rather than excuse us, in so doing; for while they thought force was warrantable in such affairs, they were zealous in the compelling persons to conform, to what they esteemed the right way of [Page 50]worship, as well as to support it: and if the for­mer was persecution, what cloak can be left for the latter! Some tell us, that money is not conscience: that we know as well as they, but they & all will know, sooner or later, that we all are but stewards of what we profess, and must give account thereof to the great Lord of all; con­sequently it must be a matter of conscience to those who view things as they are, not voluntarily to support a worship, which they believe is not right. And as a widow who suffered in this cause, which I before mentioned, Ex. p. 21, is now gone beyond the frowns and flatteries of men, I will give the reader her testimony, of what she experienced in her sufferings, as she wrote the same with her own hand on Nov. 4. 1752, in these words. ‘October 15, the collectors came to our house, and took me away to prison, about 9 o'clock in a dark rainy night. Bro­thers H. and S. were brought there the next night. We lay in prison 13 days, and then were set at liberty, by what means I know not. Whilst I was there a great many people came to see me, and some said one thing, and some another: O! the innumerable snares and temptations that beset me, more than I ever tho't on before! But O, the condescention of heaven! tho' I was bound when I was cast into this furnace, yet was I loosed, and found Jesus in the midst of the furnace with me. O! then I could give up my name, estate, family, life and breath, freely to God. Now the prison look'd like a palace to me. I could bless God for all the laughs and scoffs made at me. O! the love that flowed out to all mankind! then I [Page 51]could forgive, as I would desire to be forgi­ven, and love my neighbour as myself. Dea­con G. was put in prison the 8th of October, and yesterday old brother G. and they are in pur­suit of others; all which calls for humiliation. This church has appointed the 13th of No­vember to be spent in prayer and fasting on that account. I remember my love to you and your wife, and the dear children of God with you, begging your prayers for us in such a day of trial.^*’

Their prayers were heard, so that such oppres­sions soon ceased in that place, and have not been practised there in that manner since; tho' they are continued in other parts of the land. But if any will yet continue to devour widows houses, to uphold a pretence of religion, I trust this widow's testimony will be a witness against them another day. We come,

V. To consider what are, and what are not, just reasons for separation.

Mr. F. accuses the body of the separates with being truce-breakers; but his proof of their being such, all turns upon this point, viz. ‘Whereas they promised, to walk with us in holy fellow­ship, [Page 52]in all gospel ordinances, they openly re­nounced communion with us, when we the standing churches, were daily attending these ordinances of Christ, agreable to his instituti­on.’ Ser. p. 173. And now, as I had set down in my title page, Dr. Owen's saying, That he who will not separate from the world and false worship, is a separate from Christ; Mr. F. allows the sentence to be undoubted truth, and says, it ‘Makes directly against the people for whom Mr. B. is going to plead.’ p. 17. Let this matter therefore be carefully examined.

And.

I. I think we have already produced suffici­ent proof, that according to Christ's institution, none ought to be received into the church without gospel evidence of their saving union to the great Head of it. The Jewish church was distinguished from the nations of the world by their being chosen of God as a nation, and by the ordinances that he gave to keep them distinct from all other nations; But our Lord has bro­ken down that wall of partition; and through the new-testament he distinguishes his church from the world, by choosing them out of the world, and giv­ing them to know God which is eternal life, whom the world hath not known. John 15.19. and 17.3, 25.1 John 5.19, 20. In the Jewish cove­nant they were chosen in their family and national capacity; but the gospel covenant is not accord­ing to that, and the difference described is, All shall know God, from the least to the greatest. Yet the first thing that Mr. F. advanced to prove, that his brethren had not the spirit of Christ, but the reverse, in separating from his church, is he says, [Page 53] ‘They endeavoured to draw off from us every true believer, and would have left a congrega­tion behind them, of nothing but such as they judged to be hypocrites and graceless persons. —Surely this is not according to Christ's di­rection, Let both grow together until the har­vest.’ Ser. p. 154.

Now observe, the field wherein Christ said, Let both grow together, he says is The world; and this direction was given when both wheat and tares appeared by their fruit: how impossi­ble then must it be, for those ministers and churches to be duly separated from the world, who apply to the church what Christ said of the world? And let it be particularly noted, that the crime charged by Mr. F. upon his brethren, is their endeavouring to separate true believers from such as they judged to be graceless persons; and acting according to their judgment in thus separa­ting the church from the world, he declares to be contrary to Christ's direction. And so did all the ministers of Windham county; for they not only brought the parable of the tares, and many others for the same end that our author does, but also, after declaring it to be the design of Christ to ‘make his saints, and the ordinances of his visible Kingdom to be the means of the conver­sion of others,’ represent that ministers and christians cannot let their light shine as they ought before men, when they will have ‘No commu­nion with them in the same worship, and the same ordinances.’ ^* And for prayer and preach­ing [Page 54]the word, we ever held them to be the means for conversion as much as our opponents, and as freely admit all men to the use of them as they do; but to commune with the world in baptism and the Lord's-supper in order to convert them, this they held and we denied; and this was a principal reason of our separation from them. Yet they say, ‘That the church ought to keep and cast out all those who by their fruits are known to be tares no body denies.^*’ What can all this mean? why in the same place they shew, that by those who are known to be tares, they mean "scandalous persons;" but they go on to say,^† ‘It is the will of Christ, that all those who make an outward credible profession of christianity, should be admitted into his church, and tho' unconverted be there among the wheat, that they may be under pro­per ordinances for their conversion.’

So Mr. Stoddard, while he was pleading for all who were not openly scandalous, to come to the Lord's-supper as a converting ordinance, tells us that in the synod of 1679, they had a dispute, whether persons should give ‘A relation of the WORK OF GOD's SPIRIT upon their hearts, in order to coming into full communion.—The result was, that they blotted out the clause, of making a relation of the work of God's spirit, and put in the room of it, The making a pro­fession of their faith and repentance; and so I voted with them, and am of the same judgment still.^‡’ This general profession, to the exclu­sion [Page 55]of a relation of the work of God's Spirit on the heart, was the real state of our difference with them; but as I noted before, Ex. p. 50, this true state of the controversy was industriously shifted, from the way of knowing to the degree of knowledge. As for instance; Mr. Elisha Paine proved from many scriptures, that, ‘The church is to cast her tares out when they appear, or the whole church is leavened.^*’ The ministers of that county would have it that no body denied this, and yet go on to accuse Mr. Paine with abusing and perverting the scriptures, because he held that our Lord's prohibition, not to root up the tares, respected the world and not the church. ^† Thus like the Jewish teachers, they turn things upside down. Isa. 29.16. And now Mr. F. car­ries it that my argument is, ‘That the saints should separate from the sinners, while they are such, and deprive them of the benefit of their prayers, holy example and other means of their conversion.—From a religious assembly, and set them elswhereto worship.’ p. 114.115. when I said not a word of that nature, and had no more thoughts of such a-separation, than I had of coming into the practice of his party, of sending men to jail if they would not conform to the parish minister.

However all his attempts to darken counsel can­not hide the real state of our controversy, for he says, ‘Mr. B. reads 2 Cor. 6.14.—17. wrong. Be ye separate from UNBELIEVERS, says Mr. B. Paul says, come out from among THEM, and be separate. From whom? Answer, from [Page 56]visible heathenish idolatry.’ p. 115. But I have a better authority than his, which speaking of Christ's visible church says, ‘Separation is a proper and inseparable adjunct thereof; the apostle speaks of church membership, 2 Cor. 6.14—15. Be not unequally yoked together (yoked with those of another kind, the plowing with an ox and ass together, being forbidden under the law) with unbelievers, i. e. visible unbelievers of any sort or kind; for what par­ticipation hath righteousness with unrighte­ousness?—or what part hath a believer with an unbeliever? it ought not to be rendered infidel; but it was done, to put a blind upon this place, as to its true intention, and to countenance parish communion. ^*’ To our grief we see such attempts to blind the truth, carried on even to this day. Not a little of this is done by per­verting the meaning of the word fruits; which our Lord explains to be what is brought forth out of the heart by speaking. Luke 6.44—45. which evidently includes persons, principles and experiences, as their daily conversation; whereas our opponents would have had fruits to mean only heresy and open scandals; and good fruit to be a general assent to truth, attendance upon worship, and a moral life. But they have not been willing to let our principles and reasons for separation stand as we held them, but have re­ceived and published many accusations against us contrary to truth.

II. Christ's true ministers are all furnished [Page 57]with spiritual gifts from him; but many have been set up as ministers in our land, who were not so furnished, while others whom he had fitted for that work were rejected; for the ministry was "Limited to persons of a liberal (i. e. college) education," to the exclusion of others who were allowed to be, ‘in themselves BETTER QUALIFIED for the work of the gospel mi­nistry than some others that were ordained.^*’ And Mr. F. declares it to be a conceit with ut reason or truth, for any now to say, The Lord is raising up and sending forth unlearned men. He owns that he did so formerly, and the reason for is that he gives is, because ‘Christ himself was personally present to educate his sons.’ Ser. p. 65. I observed that to confine this to his persono! presence, struck against his divinity. Ex. p. 65. This Mr. F. now represents as exceeding injuri­ons. p. 88.89. But it is certain that Christ did by his spirit give vastly greater gifts to his ministers after the withdrawing his personal presence, than he did before: gifts for ordinary as well as ex­traordinary ministers. Eph. 4.11. And Dr. Owen well observes, that after his resurrection he ordered his disciples not to engage in the public work of building his church, till they had received those gifts. Acts 1, and says, ‘Christ would have them look neither for assistance in their work nor success unto it, but from the premised Spirit alone. And herein did lie, and now doth lie the foundation of the ministry of the church, as also its continuance and efficacy. The king­dom of Christ is spiritual, and in the animacing, [Page 58]principles of it, invisible. If we fix our minds only on outward order, we loose the rise and power of the whole; it is not an outward visible ordination by men, tho' it be necessary by rule and precept, but Christ's communication of that spirit, the everlasting promise whereof he receiv­ed of the father, that gives BEING, life, use­fulness, and success to the ministry. This is the hinge whereon the whole weight of it doth turn and depend unto this day.’ ^*

Mr. F. is so far from these sentiments, that in order to justify his applying Isa. 50.4. to human learning, he now calls that learning, ‘This gift of the spirit;’ and says, ‘Human learning is AS MUCH the gift of God as grace.’ p. 87, which discovers what violence some men will offer to language and common sense, rather than yield to conviction. We readily grant, that all our fa­culties, and all our accomplishments, are God's gifts; but success in the study of languages and the libe­ral arts are not more so, than skill in husbandry is. Isa. 28.26, 29. Yea, as the former is very con­versant with heathen fable and sophistry, its subjects are often found not to be so honest as the other. Every thing that can be attained by human instruc­tion and industry, are but the accomplishments of natural men, instead of being spiritual gifts. 1 Cor. 2.12—14. and 12.1—11. The forementioned excellent author truely observes,^† that the dis­tinction of natural and spiritual is derived from the Head we are in. The first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickning spirit; there­fore [Page 59]if we are not partakers of his spirit, we have no spiritual gifts; nothing higher than the furni­ture of natural men. 1 Cor. 15.45—48. And the grand difference is; one has a supreme regard to God, the other a supreme regard to self, in his doings.

III. Christ constituted his church a free people, and he commands them to stand fast in that liberty. Gal. 5.1—13. This command we could not obey without separating from the constitution that Mr. F. pleads for. For

1. I trust it has already been clearly proved, that he claims a power in ministers to examine and opprobate others, and to limit the church to such candidates; and as a reason for so doing he says, ‘The gospel furniture of an able and faithful minister of Jesus Christ, in its full latitude, is above the reach of common people. Very dan­gerous and pernicious errors, may lie so deep and concealed, as to require much reading and penetration to discover them, which com­mon brethren ordinarily have not.’ p. 82. Which makes me think of Dr. Owen's remarks upon the Pharisees sentence in John 7.49. Yet says the Doctor ‘Was it this people whom the apostles directed to choose out from among themselves persons meet for an ecclesiastical of­fice, Acts 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 associated with them in the determination of it. Acts 15. The same to whom all the apostolical epistles, except­ing some to particular persons, were written, and unto whom such directions were given, and du­ties [Page 60]enjoined in them, as suppose not only a liberty and ability to judge for themselves in all matters of faith and obedience, but also an es­pecial interest in the order and discipline of the church: Those who were to say unto Archip­pus (their bishop) take heed unto the ministry thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it. Col. 4. Unto whom of all sorts, it is com­manded that they examine and try antichrist's spirits and false teachers, that is, all sorts of hereticks, heresies and errors, 1 John chapters 2, 3, &c. That people, who even in following ages adhered unto the faith and the authodox profession of it, when almost all their bishops were become Arian hereticks; and kept their private conventicles in opposition unto them, at Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and other places.^*’

Mr. F. tries hard to persuade his readers, that Dr. Owen was for him, and against us, but you may now judge whether the case is not truly the reverse, since the Doctor has so fully proved from the word of truth, that the apostles and elders acted with the brethren in all these affairs, and not in a distinct jurisdiction from them. But mi­nisters in the Massachusetts made a formal attempt to introduce such a jurisdiction about 70 years ago; and tho' it did not succeed as they wished there, yet in Connecticut a political governor, who had been a minister, introduced the scheme; and a learned minister who was trained up among them says, ‘This platform by implication vests a mi­nister with a negative on the church in all her [Page 61]acts. And in council it has thrown a very great light in their ballance of power into the hands of the ministers, even to more than a negative on the messengers.—Taken literally, it in the first place stipulates the absolute un­subordinate power of particular churches. It afterwards vests the consociated council with au­thoritative final decision on all matters of disci­pline submitted to it by the churches of the circuit. It at length vests the council with a general and original jurisdiction on ALL occasions ecclesiastical. ^*’

It was for opposing and withdrawing from this jurisdiction, that the representatives of Norwich, were censured by the minister and his party, and by that means were excluded from their place in the general assembly. Ex. p. 29. And this was the jurisdiction that exerted all its power to rob Branford of a good minister, because he ventured to preach among the baptists against these minis­ters wills. Ex. p. 30, 31. And the same that gave "special direction" to the parish in Can­terbury to call and retain one of their candidates, against the minds of the church, which occasioned our first separation. Ex. p. 42. Hence

2. The constitution which Mr. F. pleads for, has given the world a power over the church, ab­solutely inconsistent with gospel liberty; and tho' he has exerted all his art to blind this case (as I shall shew in my address to him) yet by his own account it appears, that ministers ordained their candidate at Canterbury, contrary to the judg­ment of the greater part of the church; and that when they knew that if they did it, it would not be [Page 62]in their power to prevent the parish from forcing the church to support him; and tho' they got the society then to vote their willingness that the ge­neral court should set them off; yet it appears that when the case came there, ‘The society's attorney objected and said, That it would spoil the society, for if these people were released, the charges would be so heavy upon the rest, that they would forsake the ministers.^*’ Which objection the court heard to, and left the church in the hands of the parish, who imprisoned their persons, or spoiled their goods, to maintain that minister, for more then fifteen years; and then they would not release them only on conditi­on, that they should pay their part ‘of the tax, or taxes already granted, to the present esta­blished minister in said society;’ and all that voted for his settlement they refused to release at all as long as he continued their minister. He was ordained in 1744, and this parish vote (as appears from under their clerk's hand) was on April 21, 1760. Yet Mr. F. says of this parish, ‘As to their religious conduct in the whole affair, there is nothing appears in them to denominate them the world, any more than in their brethren that are called the church.’ p. 79.

But if to pretend a willingness to release the church till they had got their minister ordained, and then to treat them as they did, be not like the wicked world, I desire to know what can be! Yea, and as those ministers then joined with the world in ordaining that minister against the choice of the church, so Mr. F. now plainly justifies the world [Page 63]in prosecuting the churches pastor for marrying; and says, ‘Setting up in opposition to the stand­ing churches, their pastor was not an officer known, either in church or state.’ p. 80.

Now kind reader see where we are. This was a regular church till the clergy and the world obliged them, either to take a minister contrary to their judgments, or to leave the meeting-house; and because they never petitioned the civil powers to form them into a "religious society," but only to be exempted from oppression from others, Mr. F. calls them separates, irregular, &c. p. 76. 79. Therefore if these ministers did not cause division and offences, contrary to the gospel. I de­sire to know whoever did! and we are commanded to mark and avoid such. Rom. 16.17.

I before quoted Dr. Owen's observation concern­ing national churches, that tho' they talk of liberty of conscience, yet when it comes to the issue, all choice is prevented, and in the church where a man was baptized in infancy, and in the parish where his habitation falls, in that parish-church he must worship, or be dealt with as a schismatick. Then I produced this case at Canterbury, and proved, that two members of that church were dealt with and expelled Yale-college as schismat­icks, only for meeting for worship with the church they belonged to, in a place separate from the pa­rish meeting-house; and those who expelled them declared to the world that, ‘Neither the major part of the members in full communion, nor any other persons, in any parish, have any right to appoint any house or place for worship on the sabbath, separate from, and in opposition to the meeting-house, the public place appointed [Page 64]by the general assembly and the parish.’ This I observed, makes the general assembly lawgivers for the church, and the parish executors of it. Ex. p. 83.84.

But Mr. F. says ‘That relates ONLY to the placing of meeting-houses,—and so is a matter of a civil nature; but don't so much as touch the principles, the order, discipline and govern­ment of the churches;’ and he asserts that my last sentence is "evidently void of TRUTH." p. 103, 104. What! does the parish's forcing the church to hear a man they were not edified by, or else to leave the meeting-house, and then ministers and colleges, treating them as schismaticks for so doing, not touch the principles and government of the churches! What amazing blindness is here discovered!

By Mr. F's own account, a certain quantity of worldly estate gives every inhabitant power, by their constitution, to vote for ministers, and all the ad­vantage that the members in full communion have above the rest is that they may vote with the world if they have no estate; and he says ‘All vote in our parishes, as men qualified by law; and as Mr. B. brings in the clergy with the world, with a design to do them a mischief, he makes a terrible overthrow; slaying clergy and laity, standing churches and separates, all with one stroke: but no matter for that—if the ministers &their churches may but fall, he seems willing that he and his brethren, Sampson-like should die with the Philistines.’ p. 83, 84. This is a sort of rhetoric that some bring in to supply the want of argument. I well know that in civil affairs, christians vote with others by virtue of their [Page 65]civil and worldly qualifications; but as the gospel ministry is a spiritual office, men ought to have spiritual qualifications in order to vote for them; and this confounding of church and world together in such affairs, is a Babel which must and will come down. Dr. Owen says, ‘Where the fun­damentals of religious worship are corrupted or overthrown, it is absolutely unlawful to join unto, or abide in any church.’ And the first of these fundamentals that he names is, ‘That all ministers or officers of it, be duly chosen by the church itself. ^*’ And Dr. In­crease Mather says, ‘It would be Simonical to affirm that this sacred privilege (of voting for a pastor) may be purchased with money, or that contributions can entitle to it.^†’ And he names a number of principles, which if we es­pouse, he says we then give away the whole con­gregational cause; on of which is,^‡ ‘That persons not qualified for communion in speci­al ordinances, shall ELECT PASTORS FOR CHUR­CHES.’

Here note, under the Massachusetts first char­ter, none were allowed to vote for officers, either in church or state, but members in full commu­nion; but a turn of times in that respect happen­ed a little before these words were written; and the apostacy had now prevailed so far, that we were obliged to separate from the world, who had usurped such a power over the church, or else give away the whole congregational cause. And as the heads of the college declared, That the parish in [Page 66]Canterbury had ‘the special direction of the association,’ in keeping that minister. Ex. p. 42. therefore it was not I that yoked the clergy with the world, as Mr. F. terms it; for I only remarked what they had done themselves. And now he asserts, that the divine command, Be not unequally yoked, but be ye separate, means from heathens, and not from unbelievers in general, p. 115. We therefore could not be free from that yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear, without separating from them. We have often heard them talk of separating godliness or religion by these means, but the evident de­sign is gain; and the command is From such withdraw thyfelf. 1 Tim. 6.5. The above were the main causes of our separation, tho' other points that are connected therewith had their in­fluence.

Unwarranted ways of worship, is one reason that Dr. Owen gives for separation. This Mr. F. says, ‘I never heard objected even by our separating brethren (as I remember) nor is their any shadow of reason for the charge.’ p. 104. Yet he did inform us that his brethren urged the ‘Half-way covenant as a sufficient reason for their separating.’ But tells us that they improperly called it half way, and says, ‘it is full and compleat, binding them to observe all things whatsoever the Lord our God has com­manded.’ While his next words shew, that he leads persons thus to covenant to observe all, when he knows they do not mean all; that they do not mean to come to the Lord's table, for want of sufficient improvement in ‘experimental godliness.’ Ser. p. 92. And what can this [Page 67]be but false worship? yea lying to God! Ano­ther way of worship he tells us that his brethren did object against, and he owns he did practice, which is, ‘writing down all that he judged expedient to deliver at that time, and then praying for assistance.’ Ser. p. 149. These ways of worship he has told the world that his brethren did object against, and yet now he can't remember any such thing, which shews how hard it is to remember or retain in mind, any thing that condemns self.

Neglect of evangelical discipline in the church­es, and turning it into a worldly dominion, is ano­ther reason for separation. Ex. p. 87. But Mr. F. asserts that it is not applicable to his church­es. p. 101—104. Whether the foregoing facts do not prove the case to be otherwise, notwith­standing his witness in his own cause, the reader must judge.

The next article is Dr. Franck's saying that, ‘Carnal preachers under the influence of pride and ambition, interpret whatever is done to their persons, as an assault against their holy function, pouring forth their malice and bitter­ness upon all those, who, they suppose have affronted them,’ &c. Ex. p. 84. And I produced the words of sixteen of our author's brethren in the ministry, in what he now calls an excellent letter, wherein they accuse those who separated from them, with holding a principle which implied, ‘That there is NO instituted mi­nistry, or order of men, peculiarly appointed to that work in the christian church.’ While the same men exerted all their power, to prevent our churches having ordained ministers. Ex. p. 47. [Page 68]89. ^* I also referred him to seven other minis­ters in his own county, who in a printed alarm to the world, compare our withdrawing from them, to Core's gainsaying Moses and Aaron, who were called immediately from heaven. Ex. p. 23. And now Mr. F. declares that the pastor of the church in Canterbury, ‘was not an officer known, either in church or state,’ only because he was not set up ‘according to the constitution, of the country.’ p. 80. Though by the way, the honorable justices of the superior court in the Massachusetts province, have often, in cases bro't before them, determined that ours are as truly ordained ministers as theirs are.

Yet notwithstanding all the evidence that I produced, Mr. F. says, ‘Our real character is as different from that which he has set up, as the true protestant churches are from the an­tichristian; or as the apostle Peter was from the Pope of Rome.’ p. 102. But the reader will judge, whether accusing us with holding to, NO instituted ministry, and with being guilty of the gainsaying of Core, only because we followed not them, be as far from interpreting what is done to their persons, as an assault against their holy function, as Peter was from the Pope or not; or whether our separation, as above described, was [Page 69]not truly from the world & false worship; for no o­ther than such a separation do I pretend to justify.

A few remarks shall close this head. And,

1. It is not doubted but that many have come out from those called standing churches in our land, who did not act upon these principles, but have been influenced by ourward appearances, or unreasonable impressions, rather than an un­derstanding regard to divine truth? and which has caused a great deal of trouble and searching trials among us, and given occasion to our ene­mies. Yet all the errors in the world cannot overthrow the truth, nor excuse us if we do not obey it; and it is so far from being truce-breaking, to withdraw from ministers and churches, when we see that they grossly swerve from the truth, and will not be reclaimed, that we can not keep covenant, either with God or them, but by such a withdraw.

2. This our opponents allow, but deny our having any such cause to withdraw from them. And to try to support their argument, they col­lect all the good things, or good pretences that they can find on their side; and then all the errors and evils that they can see or hear of among sepa­rates. But what work would it make, if we should requite them in the same way, and draw their character to the world from the false-teaching. lying, whoredoms, drunkenness and other abomi­nations, that in fact have happened among their ministers and churches! yet there would be as much justice in so doing, as in a very great part of what they have done to us in these affairs. Mr. F. told the world, that his design was to draw the separates pictures to the life, that they [Page 70]might be ashamed. Ser. p. 130. In doing of which he collected the worst things that he could find among any that bore the name; yea, I am told by a gentleman of note in Stonington, that one instance of ill treatment to him which he has published, was from a woman that never was of either the separate church or society, only as she happened to live then at one of their houses. At the same time he says, ‘I know not of one princi­ple or practice among them, that is agreable to the gospel, but what they learned in our chur­ches." Ser. p. 113. 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.’ Ser. p. 160.

Since he talks so much about learning, I think to make a little trial of what some of their rules of logic will do in this affair; as thus,

Every cause will produce its own effects. Mr. F. gives a dreadful account of how roughly the separates treated him, soon after they came out of the standing churches. But when they had been out above 20 years, he says ‘They are now, much more moderate and civil, than they were in that day; are very peacable, kind, obliging good neighbours.’ Ser. p. 157, 158.

Ergo, they have received better teaching since they came out than they had before. Again,

Take away the cause, and the effect will cease, Mr. F. tells the world, that the special occasion of publishing his sermons, was ‘The revival of the spirit of separation and annabaptism.’ Pre­face. p. 3.

Ergo, the spirit of our separation when revi­ved, was a spirit of civility, peace and good nei­bourhood, [Page 71]and all his representations to the con­trary are unjust and abusive, for which he is con­demned out of his own mouth.

3. The only way to bring this controversy to a fair issue, is to examine the true nature and effects of our professed principles, or shew wherein we do not act agreable to them. This I have aim­ed at in all these labours, and desire others to do the same with me. If any man can shew us where­in we hold any wrong principle, or in a friendly manner correct any disagreable practice, he will do us a real kindness; but to charge us with any thing that we are conscious we do not hold, can never convince us that we are wrong, or they right.

4. It has ever been satan's method, when he could no longer keep people easy with the dead carcase of religion, than to promote in some, great pretences of spirituality which are not true; which formalists have never failed to improve as an argument against reformation. How much have papists used this argument against protes­tants, and episcopalians against puritans and dis­senters? And is not the same now used against us? That there has been much enthusiasm, and many false pretences to spirituality in our day, is a melancholy fact; but it is quite as injurious to lay the blame thereof to the main principles, or chief leaders of our separation, as it would be to the chief instruments of the revival of religion in 1741; for there were as bad or worse things of that nature, that happened before our separa­tion, than have since. Therefore it appeared needful thus to trace matters up to their original, and to set principles and facts in as clear light [Page 72]as might be, not only to vindicate our sentiments and characters, against our learned opponents, but also to detect the false pretences of some, who are ready to separate from their brethren upon every turn of affairs, yet pretending to stand and act in the same cause we first came out upon. And this is no new thing; for even in the apostles days, after they had earnestly appeared for truth and gospel liberty, and for deliverance from Jewish and heathen bondage, some took occasion under the name of liberty to dispise go­vernment; who notwithstanding their great swel­ling words, were really servants of corruption. 2 Pet. 2.10—19. And it will ever be found, that licentiousness is as real an enemy to liberty, as tyranny; nor is their any great difference between them.

Government is for every one to act toward others, in their several stations and relations, by known laws and established rules; tyranny and licentiousness are the following our own inclina­tions without due regard to such rules. But as such a way of acting must look odious to all rati­onal minds, when it appears in its own colours; therefore men have always tried to cover it with some specious pretence or another, which yet may be detected by such marks as these. 1. Where self prevails, it will try to excite in others so high an opinion of our deep insight into things that they do not understand, as to yield implicitly to us; while a humble teacher abhors such a dominion over others faith, and labours to ma­nifest the truth to every man's conscience, and exhorts all saints to walk in Christ as they have been taught. 2 Cor. 1.24. and 4.2. Col. 2.7.— [Page 73]18.2. Whatever garb pride is covered with, if it is crossed it will discover bitterness, and often moves its subjects to become false accusers, and fierce despisers of those who are good. Micah 3.5. 2 Tim. 3.3, 5. While the humble soul is patient, and in meekness labours to instruct those who oppose themselves. 2 Tim. 2.24, 25. Jam. 3.1, 13—18. It appears by Jotham's parable, that worthy minds, like the olive, fig-tree and vine, prefer usefulness and the yielding of sweet fruit to others, to any promotion and power over them; while worthless creatures, like the bram­ble, are forward for dominion; and if any refuse to submit to them, they are presently for fire to come out and devour the best charac­ters that will dare to oppose their ambition. Judges 9.7—15. Hence 3. True love unites tenderness with faithfulness, labouring to gain mens persons, while it uses boldness against their sins; but a proud temper wants to get rid of all who refuse to gratify it, and is ready to say, Am I my brother's keeper! Gen. 4. 1 John 3.12.

As I am willing to have all I have said and done in these affairs, tried by these marks, and no further regarded than it agrees there­with; so I earnestly intreat all my friends and brethren, carefully to examine their conduct thereby. If we do not despise government, we have a conscientious regard to Christ's authority, and to act in our several station and relations as he has commanded us. He has commanded us to hold fast our profession, and to consider one a­nother to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling ourselves together, &c. Heb. 10.23—25. But do not some let go [Page 74]their profession, instead of holding it fast; and forsake their brethren because they say they are fallen, instead of considering their weak and tempted state, and labouring to stir them up, or to restore them in a spirit of meekness, as the command is! Gal. 6.1. The same authority says, Take heed to yourselves, if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he re­pent forgive him: and says, All things that are reproved are made manifest by the light. Luke 17.3. Eph. 5.13. But do not some accuse their brethren, of having fallen out of the testimony, of not coming up into the witness; of some such general phrases, without and light to manifest, wherein they have advanced any parti­cular error, or broken any particular precept? Yea, do not some hover in general or figurative words, and tell their brethren, that they cannot see where they are, unless they come up into the witness, &c.? which is a practising the very same iniquity under the pretence of spiritual teaching, as others have done under the name of great learning. Whereas our Lord said to his apostles, A candle gives light to all that are in the house; let your light shine before men, that they may see, &c. Such persons are very ready to condemn the learned for keeping their people in ignorance; though some of them are as grossly guilty of darkening counsel with words without knowledge, as any sophister of the age.

True pastors feed God's people with know­ledge and understanding, not with unintelligible noise. We have a glorious promise, that when scorners are consumed, who have made such use of words as to turn aside the just for a thing of [Page 75]nought, that then, They that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. Isa. 29.20—24. And it af­fords great comfort and encouragement to my soul, to see how much this promise is now fulfil­ling in our land; notwithstanding some are still afraid freely to exercise their understandings for fear of getting legal; and seem to think that to learn doctrine, and the distinct nature and connection of things, would lead them off from spirituality: whereas we have no more of spirituality than we have of likeness to God, in whom is no darkness at all; and the very reason why it is impossible for God to lie, or to be tempted of evil, is because he knows better. I John 1.5. James 1.13—17.

One important question is yet before us, which is; How shall we know when we have just cause to separate and when not? The rule is perfect, but the best of men, or of churches, are imper­fect; and some will join with no church, because they can't find a perfect one; while others seem as if they would swallow any thing, if it did not cross their own inclination. The rule requires condescention and forbearance, but how shall we know its true limits and extent? I confess that this has been as difficult a point heretofore in my mind, as any point in practical godliness. The clearest light that I have obtained in it is this. It is essential to acting rationally that we have some design or end in what we do. Now the leading design of the gospel, is to turn men from sin to God. Act. 26.18. And so far as conforming to circumcision, and other Jewish rites, would pro­mote this end, Paul condescended to the Jews, (and so to others) but when those things were [Page 76]brought up in such a way as to cross that design, he would not give place an hour longer, but ap­peared against them with a fixed resolution. Gal. 2.5. and 5.2.

Another great design, is the edification of the saints; and we are all required to follow the things which make for that end. Rom. 14, 19. And every member of Christ, is required to im­prove the gift that he has given for that end; and liberty so to do, is of importance to be main­tained. Yet while this liberty has not been al­lowed, (as we have seen) in the churches we came out of, some have ran to the other extreme, and have been so zealous for the liberty of speaking, as not duly to regard others liberty of judging; and instead of being subject one to another, and cloath­ed with humility, have sadly discovered a contrary behaviour. 2 Cor 14.1 Pet. 5.5. Once more; the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable; and so far as peace can be had consis­tent with purity; it is to be pursued with all men: but we are never to sell the truth for peace, no not to save natural life. Jam. 3.17. Heb. 12.14. Prov. 23.23.

Now if our eye be single in any of these affairs to the end for which God has appointed them, he will surely guide us in judgment in our use of the means; for Christ's word is, If thine eye be sin­gle thy whole body shall be full of light: but if evil, how great will be our darkness? Mat. 6.23. And it is very necessary that we well dis­tinguish, between what are the divine commands, and the forbearance that is allowed in some cases towards persons who do not fully conform to them. For want of this distinction, so great a [Page 77]man as Mr. Bunyan, improved the instance of forbearance in 2 Chron. 30.18—20, to establish the custom of communing at the Lord's table with unbaptized persons. Whereas the persons who then partook of the passover otherwise than it was written, had not enjoyed the free use of those writings for a long time; and we have no account of their ever partaking so again. What a great mistake then was it, to bring an extraor­dinary case, to establish a general rule? Yet some have gone further still; for they have im­proved instances of forbearance as an argument against the authority of express commands.

How have many improved instances of God's visiting, and using further means with degenerate churches before he cast them off; as an argument that we ought to continue with them, even after it is evident to us that they refuse to be reform­ed? Again, Paul's foregoing his right of tem­poral communications from some of his hearers, for particular reasons that he gives, 1 Cor. 9. some have improved as an argument that hearers are under no obligation to communicate to any on account of their teaching, but only on account of poverty; and if they are not poor, then not at all. Tho' there is not a plainer command in the bible, for ministers to preach the gospel, than there is, for him that is taught in the word, to communicate unto him that teacheth in ALL good things." Gal. 6.6. I trust it has been sufficiently proved, that the authority of King George does not extend to this case; but shall that make us to disregard the authority of King Jesus! If he be duly re­garded, I believe it will be found that both mi­nisters and people, are but stewards of what they [Page 78]posses and therefore that avoiding all unrea­sonable censuring of each other, their great con­cern should be, that in their several stations and relations they may be found faithful, so as at last to receive praise of God. 1 Cor. 4.1—5.