Of Liturgies Power of the Keys

The Preface to the Reader.

I T was the profession of the Lord Jesus before Pilate, when he questioned with him about his Kingdom, John 18. 37. That for this cause he was born and came into the world, to bear witness of the truth. Many truths about the spiritual Kingdom of Christ hath he imparted to us, if therefore we be born into the world, or sent into this Wilderness to bear witness to his truth, it is unto us reward sufficient, that we should be witnesses thereunto, even to the utmost parts of the Earth. We confess we have been too slow in this service of Christ, not having to this day set forth an unanimous Confession of that Form of wholesome words which is Preached, received, and professed in these Churches of the Lord Jesus; and which we are not unmindful of, though our distances, and other difficulties may delay the opportunity. But this in the mean time we profess in general, That (so far as we know) there is the same blessed Spirit of Truth breathing in the Ministry of the Country; the same Faith embraced and professed in the Churches, which is generally received as the Orthodox Doctrine of the Gospel, in the best reformed Churches, and particularly by our godly learned Brethren of England and Scotland. And though errors have sprung up among us, and some are gone out from us, that we fear were not of us, yet we have borne witness against them, and by the blessing of God, by the breath of Christ in the mouths of his servants they have been blasted. Neither do we understand that these Churches are accused of any errors about the saving truths of the Gospel, and therefore we thought ourselves not so much called of God to such a Confession at present, as to clear up to the world those Truths we profess about the kingdom and government of Christ in his Churches, which is the great work of this age, and of this nick of time. And yet here also we fear that we have been too slack; for though it be said, We are the Volunteers, such as cry up this way, &c. and so it seems we are apprehended to be one cause of these present differences: yet if things be well weighed, we may seem rather to be far behind in the duty that lies upon us. Indeed some brief Answers sent over to some particular persons, to satisfy Brethren what our practice is, (with some brief touch of our reasons) rather then to discuss those points, have been printed by some without our knowledge, or assent, upon what grounds they best know. And some short Treatises by some reverend Brethren have been published to declare their affectionate desires of the unanimous endeavors of all our dear Brethren, for a general and holy Reformation: But what hath been said or done that either may justly offend the minds of the godly, provoke their spirits, disunite their affections, or hinder a godly Reformation? Yea, we have been too slow to clear our Doctrine and practice from the many objections, harsh interpretations, and manifold criminations cast upon the same, wherein we fear our loathness to intermeddle in these Controversies for fear of making the breach wider amongst Brethren; and our desire rather to attend what light we might receive from others in these points wherein we profess ourselves seekers after the truth, have made us guilty of neglect in this our duty. But now we see ourselves pressed hereto, by a necessity of justifying our ways against the many aspersions cast upon them, as well as against the Reasons used against them, for we perceive by the first Letter of our Brethren, how the with-drawing of Christians from the Liturgy was imputed to us, and by this Reply both in the Epistle and divers passages, we cannot but see what apprehensions are raised of us; yea, many are apt to think, that if we had said nothing, yet our very act in forsaking the Churches of God in our dear native Country, and the Cause of Christ there, together with the practice of these Churches thought to be so different from the reformed Churches, have been, not only a great weakening to the hands of the Godly, (that have stood by the Cause of Christ) but also have caused great disturbance to the Reformation in hand: To which much might be said, but that we should exceed the bounds of an Epistle. Yet let us entreat all the Godly wise, to consider and look back upon the season of this great enterprise, undertaken by us, and the manner of our proceedings in it, with the admirable workings of God's Providence first and last about it; and we think (though we were silent) they may easily satisfy themselves, whether this was of God or men, a sinful neglect of the Cause of Christ, or a manifest attestation to the truth, by open profession against Corruptions of Worship in use, and for the necessity of reformation of the Church; and that confirmed by no small degree of sufferings for the same. For was it not a time when human Worship and inventions were grown to such an intolerable height, that the consciences of God's saints and servants enlightened in the truth) could no longer bear them? was not the power of the tyrannical Prelates so great, that like a strong Current carried all down stream before it, what ever was from the law, or otherwise set in their way? Did not the hearts of men generally fail them? Where was the people to be found that would cleave to their godly Ministers in their sufferings, but rather thought it their discretion, to provide for their own quiet and safety? Yea, when some freely in zeal of the Truth preached or professed against the corruptions of the times, did not some take offense at it, judge it rashness, and to be against all rules of discretion, who since are ready to censure us for deserting the Cause? Many then thought, it is an evil time, the prudent shall hold their peace, and might we not say, this is not our resting place? And what would men have us do in such a case? Must we study some distinctions to salve our Consciences in complying with so manifold corruptions in God's Worship? or should we live without God's ordinances, because we could not partake in the corrupt administration thereof? or content ourselves to live without those ordinances of God's Worship and Communion of Saints which he called us unto, and our souls breathed after? or should we forsake the public Assemblies, and join together in private separated Churches? how unsufferable it would then have been, the great offense that now is taken at it, is a full evidence. And if in Cities, or some such great Towns that might have been done, yet how was it possible for so many scattered Christians all over the Country? It is true, we might have suffered, if we had sought it, we might easily have found the way to have filled the Prisons, and some had their share therein. But whether we were called thereunto, when a wide door was set open of liberty otherwise; and our witness to the truth, (through the malignant policy of those times) could not be open before the world, but rather smothered up in close prisons or some such ways, together with ourselves, we leave to be considered. We cannot see but the rule of Christ to his Apostles and Saints, and the practice of God's Saints in all ages, may allow us this liberty as well as others, to fly into the Wilderness from the face of the Dragon. But if it had been so, that the Godly Ministers and Christians that fled to New-England, were the most timorous and faint hearted of all their Brethren, that stayed behind, and that those sufferings were nothing in comparison of their Brethren's (for why should any b • ast of sufferings?) yet who doth not know that the Spirit who gives various gifts, and all to profit withal, in such times doth single out everyone to such work, as he in wisdom intends to call them unto? And whom the Lord will honor by suffering for his Cause, by imprisonment, &c. he gives them spirits suitable thereto: whom the Lord will reserve for other service, or employ in other places, hie inclines their hearts rather to fly, giving them an heart suitable to such a condition. It is a case of Conscience frequently put, and oft resolved by holy Bradford, Peter Martyr, Philpot, and others, in Queen Mary's bloody days, viz. Whether it was lawful to flee out of the Land: To which their answer was, that if God gave a spirit of courage and willingness to glorify him by sufferings, they should stay; but if they found not such a spirit they might lawfully fly, yea, they advised them thereunto. Those Servants of Christ, though full of the spirit of glory, and of Christ to outface the greatest persecutors in profession of the Truth, unto the death, yet did not complain of the cowardice of such as fled, because they deserted them and the Cause, but rather advised divers so to do, and rejoiced when God gave liberty to their brethren to escape with their lives to the places of liberty, to serve the Lord according to his Word. Neither were those faithful Saints and servants of God useless and unprofitable in the Church of God that fled from the bloody Prelates. The infinite and only wise God hath many works to do in the World, and he doth by his singular Providence give gifts to his Servants, and disposeth them to his Work as seemeth best to himself. If the Lord will have some to bear witness by imprisonments, dismembering, &c. we honor them therein; if he will have others instrumental to promote reformation in England, we honor them, and rejoice in their holy endeavors, praying for a blessing upon themselves and labors. And what if God will have his Church and the Kingdom of Christ go up also in these remote parts of the world, that his Name may be known to the Heathen, or whatsoever other end he hath, and to this end will send forth a company of weak-hearted Christians, which dare not stay at home to suffer, why should we not let the Lord alone, and rejoice that Christ is preached howsoever, and wheresoever? And who can say that this work was not undertaken and carried on with sincere and right ends, and in an holy serious manner, by the chief and the body of such as undertook the same? The Lord knows whether the sincere desires of worshipping himself according to his will, of promoting and propagating the Gospel, was not in the hearts of very many in this enterprise; and he that seeth in secret, and rewardeth openly, knows what prayers and tears have been poured out to God by many alone, and in days of fasting and prayer of God's servants together, for his counsel, direction, assistance, blessing in this work: How many longings and pantings of heart have been in many after the Lord Jesus, to see his goings in his Sanctuary, as the one thing their souls desired and requested of God, that they might dwell in his house forever; the fruit of which prayers and desires this liberty of New-England hath been taken to be, and thankfully received from God. Yea, how many serious consultations with one another, and with the faithful Ministers, and other eminent servants of Christ, have been taken about this work, is not unknown to some; which clears us from any rash heady rushing into this place, out of discontent, as many are ready to conceive. We will here say nothing of the persons whose hearts the Lord stirred up in this business; surely all were not rash, weak-spirited, inconsiderate of what they left behind, or of what it was to go into a Wilderness. But if it were well known and considered, or if we were able to express and recount the singular workings of divine Providence, for the bringing on of this Work, to what it is come unto, it would stop the mouths of all that have not an heart to accuse and blaspheme the goodness of God in his glorious works: whatever many may say or think, we believe after-times will admire and adore the Lord herein, when all his holy ends, and the ways he hath used to bring them about shall appear. Look from one end of the heaven to another, whether the Lord hath assayed to do such a Work as this in any Nation, so to carry out a people of his own from so flourishing a State, to a wilderness so far distant, for such ends, and for such a work: Yea, and in few years hath done for them, as he hath here done for his poor despised people. When we look back and consider what a strange poise of spirit the Lord hath laid upon many of our hearts, we cannot but wonder at ourselves, that so many, and some so weak and tender, with such cheerfulness and constant resolutions against so many persuasions of friends, discouragements from the ill report of this Country, the straits, wants; and trials of God's people in it, &c. yet should leave our accommodations and comforts, should forsake our dearest relations, Parents, brethren, Sisters, Christian friends, and acquaintances, overlook all the dangers and difficulties of the vast Seas, the thought whereof was a terror to many, and all this to go to a Wilderness, where we could forecast nothing but care and temptations, only in hopes of enjoying Christ in his Ordinances, in the fellowship of his people; was this from a stupid senselessness or desperate carelessness what became of us or ours? or want of natural affections to our dear Country, or nearest relations? No surely, with what bowels of compassion to our dear Country; with what heart-breaking affections, to our dear relations, and Christian friends many of us at least came away, the Lord is witness. What shall we say of the singular Providence of God bringing so many Ship-loads of his people, through so many dangers, as upon Eagles wings, with so much safety from year to year? The fatherly • are of our God in feeding and clothing so many in a Wilderness, giving such healthfulnesse and great increase of posterity? what shall we say of the Work it self of the kingdom of Christ? and the form of a Common-wealth erected in a Wilderness, and in so few years brought to that state, that scarce the like can be seen in any of our English Colonies in the richest places of this America, after many more years standing? That the Lord hath carried the spirits of so many of his people through all their toilsome labor, wants, difficulties, losses, &c. with such a measure of cheerfulness and contentation? But above all we must acknowledge the singular pity and mercies of our God, that hath done all this and much more for a people so unworthy, so sinful, that by murmurings of many, unfaithfulness in promises, oppressions, and other evils which are found among us, have so dishonored his Majesty, exposed his work here to much scandal and obloquy, for which we have cause forever to be ashamed, that the Lord should yet own us, and rather correct us in mercy, then cast us off in displeasure, and scatter us in this Wilderness, which gives us cause with Mich. 7. to say, Who is a God like our God, that pardoneth iniquities, and passeth by the transgressions of the remnant of his heritage; even because he delighteth in mercy? Though we be a people of many weaknesses and wants, yet we acknowledge our God to have been to us a God of many mercies, in respect of that sweet peace which he hath taken away from so many Nations, yet continuing the same to us; in respect also of that liberty we have in God's house, the blessed Ministry of the Word, the sweet unity and communion of God's Churches and Ministers, increase and multiplication of Churches, Christian government in the Common-wealth, and many other mercies we enjoy, but especially the gracious presence of Christ to many of our souls in all these. But we will not insist much upon this subject, being persuaded it is in the consciences and hearts of many of our dear Country-men to think that we should be an object of love and tenderness to that State and people, by whose Laws and unkind usages we were driven out into a wilderness, rather then to be judged as desertors of our Brethren, and the Cause of Christ in hand: with whom (excuse us if we now speak plainly) it had been far more easy unto many of us to have suffered, then to have adventured hither upon the wilderness sorrows we expected to have met withal; though we must confess the Lord hath sweetened it beyond our thoughts, and utmost expectations of prudent men.

But passing by this we must desire the Reader to bear with us a little in removing that apprehension that we are the great stumbling block in the way of Reformation, which (if it were true) it had been better we had been driven so far into this wilderness, as never to have been heard of more.

Concerning our affection to this blessed work of a public Reformation, of the Nation in general, and the particular Churches or Congregations of the Land in particular, (as it is best known to God) so we think it is not unknown to men, not only here by our daily prayers for it, and sometime solemn seekings of God about it; but also we have given some testimonies thereof both by private Letters, and the public motions of some of God's eminent servants among us tending that way.

We conceive two things specially in our Doctrine and practice, that may seem to be stumbling blocks in the way of this public Reformation, which we shall here remove.

The first is our practice wherein we seem so much to differ from the reformed Churches, in receiving to our Churches only visible Saints and believers.

This we do freely confess that our practice and judgment do evidence this to all, that we think reformation of the Church doth not only consist in purging out corrupt Worship, and setting up the true; but also in purging the Churches from such profaneness and sinfulness as is scandalous to the Gospel, and makes the Lord weary of his own Ordinances, Isaiah 1.

And we doubt not but this was in the hearts of many, (if not most) of God's servants, to desire a separation of the precious from the vile, in the dispensing of God's ordinances; and if the charity of some be of larger extent herein then others, this hinders not agreement in the main.

This day hath discovered what kind of people are to be found everywhere in the Parishes of England: Can light and darkness, Christ and Belial agree together? Popish episcopal enemies and haters of all godliness and reformation, cleave together in one Church of Christ, with the Saints of God?

Yet neither our Doctrine nor practice do prescribe and limit the way of attaining this reformation, whereby any should justly from our example stand off from concurring in such a public work.

It is true, where there is no Church relation, but a people are to begin a new constituting of Churches, reformation is to be sought in the first Constitution. This is our case. But where corrupted Churches, (such as we conceive the Congregations of England generally to be) are to be reformed, there we conceive that such Congregations should be called by able Ministers unto repentance for former evils, and confessing and bewailing their sins, renew a solemn Covenant with God to reform themselves, and to submit unto the discipline of Christ. By which means such as refuse so to do, exclude themselves, and others by the severity of Discipline should be purged out, if falling into sin they remain impenitent in the same.

What some particular persons may have said or done contrary to this our profession, we cannot say, nor do we justify, but we know nothing that hath come from us to the contrary, to weaken the hands of godly reformers, or to persuade the people to separate from the Congregations, if by any means they might attain (with toleration of what can be) the reformation thereof, with the liberty of God's true worship therein. If indeed that cannot be obtained, but men contradict and blaspheme them, as Paul separated the Disciples, so we see no other remedy the faithful have in such a case.

The second stumbling block may be our Doctrine and practice about Church-Government, when we give Discipline as well as other Ordinances to particular Churches, not subjecting them to any Government out of themselves; but only to take the brotherly counsel and help one of another.

But how this should hinder a general Reformation we see not, for if every Church so reform themselves (as is aforesaid) and have such Officers over them as the rule of the New Testament requires, 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 2. we need not fear to betrust the Church (having such Officers) with that power which we conceive Christ hath given to the same, other Churches watching over them, counseling and admonishing them in the Lord.

But if there be not such a reformation of the Churches, nor such guides set over them, the power of the keys in a Presbytery of such Pastors as may not be according to the rule, may as much abuse them as a particular Church may do, and it may be to the hurt of many who would use them better, in their own Congregations, then they can in a Classis, being over-voted there.

And we cannot conceive but both the care of reforming the matter of a Church, and the recalling of the power of government to the Church, tends much to further this work of reformation, no way to hinder the same.

And if we might obtain that of our dear Brethren, which we humbly crave, viz. That our Doctrine and practice might be taken candidly according to our plain meaning, and declarations, and not represented unto the World under such shapes and forms as make it seem rigid (all one with the most rigid Separatists, Donatists, Arminians, Socinians, &c.) we should hope that we shall go for lovers and friends to a godly and general Reformation, not for disturbers of the same; but the contrary dealing we meet with too too oft through the mistakes of Brethren; This learned Author Mr. Ball, though in the Epistle he desired us to rest assured, that although he had conceived such thoughts of us as leaning to separation, yet he would gladly receive every syllable from us that should dislodge such thoughts, yet against our plain profession sometime he will needs fasten the opinion of separation upon us, and very frequently sets Mr. Robinson in a parallel with our opinions, (as if we generally went that way in those things) which are well known to be the Doctrine of many of our godly and best reformers.

The Learned may plainly see, how easy it had been for us and upon better grounds to have filled our margents with quotations out of Papists and Prelates as parallel with many passages of this Reply, but we have purposely abstained from so doing, that we might not cast any blur or provoke the spirits of brethren.

And seeing we are enforced to wipe off such aspersions, we humbly desire our beloved Brethren (whose learned labors we honor) to bear with us if we lightly touch this sore, for we confess it brings blushing into our faces, and sadness to our hearts, to read so often such harsh imputations cast upon us, which we cannot conceive but (falling from such pens) they breed a strange loathing of us in the stomachs of many that read books without serious examinations thereof.

First, how oft do we meet with that imputation, that we make none members of a visible Church but such as are really saints and believers, contrary to our frequent profession, That visible saints that are such in judgment of charity are fit matter of the Church?

Secondly, that we make a vocal Church Oath or Covenant, the essential form of a Church, when as we frequently acknowledge that this Covenant which constituteth a Church, i • either implicit or explicit, and that Congregations in England are truly Churches having an implicit covenant; and it is far from our practice to use any Oath in our Covenant, and strange to us to read so many Pages against our Church Oath, and swearing to a Covenant, to make our courses horrid and too too rigorous.

Thirdly, that we set up a popular government, making the Elders of the Church no more but moderators, &c. and that Ministers receive their power from the people, are their servants, and administer in their name, (as Mr. Ball and others object) when we oft profess the contrary, that all authority (properly so called) is in the hands of the Elders, and the liberty of the people is to be carried in a way of subjection, and obedience to them in the Lord: neither doth it follow from any Doctrine of ours, no more then from the ordination of Pastors by the Presbytery, that they are their servants, &c.

Fourthly, that if a Congregation reject a Pastor for no fault, they take both nomen & esse, the name and nature of a Pastor from him. For this the Reader is referred to our Answer of the twenty fifth Question of the thirty two questions sent unto us, where nothing at all is said, but reference is made to our answer to the nine questions, amongst which the seventh being of this very point, our answer is quite contrary to what is imputed to us. Our words are these, Concerning the Minister himself thus deposed, &c. we conceive though he be by them deprived of the execution of his Ministry amongst them, yet until he accept of a call to another people, he still remain a Minister of Christ; in whose account he hath true right of administration among the people. Now if he remain a Minister of Christ, and have true right to administer, let any judge whether we take away nomen or esse; or that we make Church censures work ex opere operato, clave errante, as is also imputed to us. Many such mistakes we find, but let these suffice to inform the Reader how wary he had need be in receiving such reports against brethren: and this charity we have cause the more earnestly to crave of all, that they would reserve one ear to hear what their poor outcast brethren can say for themselves, because we are placed at such a distance and disadvantage, that ofttimes it is not possible for us to take notice of such objections, and return an answer under a year or almost two years, whereby Satan hath a marvelous advantage to work strange thought • and distasteful affections towards us, and fasten them so deeply that hardly they will be taken off again. But thus it falleth out too too frequently, that when Brethren, otherwise dear to each other, differ in their judgments, and break out to open contention about the same, they are very apt to make the opinions of the contrary party as unpleasing and absurd to the judgment of others, as may be, whence grief, offense, and alienations of affections (through the subtlety of Satan, and the corruption of our hearts) are ready to follow. And this makes us both fearful of ourselves, lest we should give way to any unloving thoughts towards the dear servants of Christ, or return any offensive language unto them; yea, this causeth us oft to bewail that, which can never be enough lamented, the sad distances and sharp contentions between such near brethren, whom the Lord hath so conjoined in the same Cause of Reformation. And oh that our dear brethren would bear with us a little here, and give us leave to pour out our humble and affectionate requests and expostulations into their bosoms! We would be very loath to impute anything to our dear Country and beloved brethren that is not evident, or to rip up private failings, and make them public: but when Pulpits and Presses proclaim to the world not only the distances in judgment, but also alienation of affections; when there is such straining to make the contrary tenets as odious to the world as may be, such enlarging of differences, as if the wounds could never be healed; such gall and vinegar poured on, instead of the salt of savoury speeches, and the oil of smooth and soft words to calm and pacify spirits already provoked; yea, when there want not some that seek all private Letters they can gather up, and search every corner to discover and publish to the world the seeming failings of brethren; when contentions are grown to that pass, that such orthodox, learned, and godly brethren whose faithful labors in the Lord's work, and great service and use they may be of in time to come, might worthily plead for a room in the bosoms and inmost affections of their brethren, are cried out against as not to be endured in the Country, because of some difference in some points of discipline: when these things are so, who that have any sense of God's dishonor, or true love to his Countries good, can forbear from tears, or hold his peace, that have any opportunity to utter his grief? We will not take upon us to say who began this fray, or who have most transgressed the rules of charity and wisdom. The Lord give every man an heart that hath failed to be affected with their own, and ready to pity and pardon one another's weaknesses: neither do we hereby blame loving and candid debating of differences to find out the truth; but give us leave to say thus much to all, (for our hearts and souls are with all the faithful servants of Christ, that desire according to their light to promote the kingdom of Christ Jesus, what ever their distance of judgment from us may be) What, dear brethren, is there no balm in Gilead, no Physician to heal this wound? alas, how is it now so wide and deep, that at the first was presented to the world so small, or scarce any at all? When the Prelates petitioned for their government, because the Reformers were not, nor could ever agree upon one Form: it was professed that in six Points (whereof some are now the greatest bones of contention) all did agree; and doubted not but if the Prelates were down, all would agree in one. And was this bare words to put off the Prelatical petition? or did the Author speak without ground at adventures? God forbid we should think so; but what the common adversary will think and speak, it would grieve a godly heart to consider. How comes it then to pass the breach is grown so great? It rejoiced our hearts to see that ingenuous, Christian and peaceable disposition in that ever honored brother Mr. Herle, who brought the distance in his Preface to such a narrow, as if one plaster more might seem to have healed it; oh that there had been many more of that peace making spirit! what heart burnings and contentions had been prevented. We thought also that me • ke Apologetic Narration gave a fair opportunity of closing with brethren in such things as they professed to concur in, but what contrary entertainment it found, we lament to consider. And is it now come to this pass, that these who were in a manner one cannot live together in the same kingdom? Oh the depth of the malice and subtlety of that old Serpent! Oh the policy and undermining faculty of the Jesuitical generation, (who no doubt have a great influence in this division!) Oh the frailties of flesh and blood in God's dearest Saints! Oh the unsearchable depths of the Lord's eternal counsels, that for holy ends leaves his own to such temptations, and yet knows how, and will assuredly improve all this to his own glory, and the lifting up of the name and kingdom of Christ in despite of all the gates of hell; and give his servants once a season to sing together this song of Moses and of the Lamb in triumph over all their enemies. But what? is the cause past help and remedy? shall we think, alas, there is no hope, they will not leave until they have devoured each other, better for us to say nothing, we shall be but censured and slighted of all? God forbid, have we ventured thus far, and shall we not presume a little further? Oh that we were worthy and fit to propound anything that might tend to mollify this sore: Or that the Lord himself would speak by such poor creatures any word in season to help (at least a little) in this sad case! We will not, dear Brethren, make this long Epistle more tedious by presenting unto you all that might be said to move and persuade your hearts to study peace and unity, and with one shoulder to set yourselves to further this blessed work of public Reformation, for which the Lord hath put such an opportunity into your hands, as never was the like, and God knows, whether ever it will be, if this be slipped. We are persuaded, when the heat of contention is laid aside, the blessed Spirit of Christ in you doth secretly suggest arguments enough unto your hearts. Do you not oft hear such whisperings as these. Are they not Brethren who differ from us? hath • ot the Lord received them? do they not stand or fall to their own Master, and how shall we reject or judge them? have we not our ignorances and frailties? what, is there no consolation in Christ, no comfort of love, no fellowship of the spirit? or if so, should not this persuade us to be of one mind in the Lord? do we not hope to live in heaven together, and shall we stand at such distances here? shall we thus suffer peace to go from us, and not follow and pursue it? shall we lose the blessing of peace-makers? shall we by such differences, thus gratify Satan, Jesuits, Prelates, &c. and strengthen their hands by weakening our own? are we not in the highway to devour each other, and expose all to ruin? is it not high time for us that are one in the Orthodox truth, to join heart and hand to pray, and preach, and write as one, to stop the flood-gate of errors and abominations that Satan hath set open to the drowning of many souls, and the hazard of many of the sheep of Christ, whiles we are contending about some matters of order which though they be of moment, yet must give way unto. more fundamental truths; and oh that this mischief were sufficiently laid to heart, and the dangerous spreadings of such gangrenes looked to in season! What will not all our vows, covenants and solemn Oaths bind us together? These and many such heart-breaking considerations we doubt not are before your eyes daily, which therefore we will not enlarge. Only give us leave to propound what we conceive in our weak judgment might somewhat tend to heal this distance. We confess we stand far from the mark, and may miss the matter, but if we do, let our wellmeaning be accepted, and our weakness pardoned.

Two things, as we touched before, we conceive keep our dear brethren from closing together in one to promote the public and general Reformation.

First, that point of Reformation which concerns the members of the Churches, and here we fear the distance at present is great. For when it's thought, on the one hand, that there is no need of sending godly Preachers to the ignorant and profane Parishes to instruct them, humble them, and prepare them for a gracious Reformation, but that Pastors (if they could be found) should be sent to them, and minister to them as they are, if they will but join in the national Covenant, as most have done, (for we see no other required) and when godly Pastors may not have power to try their people whether they can examine themselves, discern the Lord's body, and walk according to Christ, before they admit them to the Lord's Table, nor may exclude them but upon some scandalous evil, which seems short of that which even the Common-prayer-book did allow. Considering in what a state multitude of Parishes are in England, how full of Malignants, Atheists, profane Wretches, &c. we must needs acknowledge it will be very hard for the godly to satisfy their consciences in such Church-communion, or godly Pastors to minister unto their Parishes in such a state, and therefore we cannot wholly condemn such Ministers and people as have been gathered into congregations if there were no hope of remedy in this case.

Secondly, on the other hand, when some shall gather out of many Congregations the most godly and able Christians into severed Churches, we must acknowledge it may occasion grief to the Ministers of such Congregations. But is there no middle way wherein according to God these two might meet? we suppose there is. If the Lord would vouchsafe to help his people in these few things.

1 Is it not possible to obtain of that ever Renowned Parliament, not only such liberty for godly Pastors, and their Churches to debar from the Lord's Table such as are not qualified according to the former description of the Reverend Assembly; but also all favor and furtherance from Authority to purge out of the Church all such according to rule, that live impenitently in any known sin and scandalous evil? we cannot doubt but that if brethren would agree with one heart to petition the same, such as have done so worthily many things for purging the House of God, would also promote this needful point of Reformation.

2 If all the godly Ministers would join as one man, and take unto them the zeal of John Bap. thundering out the direful wrath of God against the pride, vanity, luxury, profaneness, and late swarms of monstrous errors, (the usual tares accompanying Reformation) and other sins of the time, to lay all level before the Lord; and with holy Calvin, resolve to suffer their hands to be cut off rather, then to deliver that holy seal of grace to the openly wicked and impenitent sinner; how would the Lord go out with his servants, and cut down sin by the sharp sword of his Word, and severity of Discipline, if all joined together? Whereas we fear sin and profaneness will out-stare all godly Pastors, when they stand so much divided.

3 If these things being obtained and agreed, all godly Ministers and Christians, which are the salt of the earth, and might by the blessing of God season the Congregations wherein they live, they would not cast them off, or withdraw from them, till first by public and private admonitions and exhortations they had convinced them of sin, and sought by all good means their reformation.

Whereby some no doubt might be gained, and what a blessed work were that? And as for others that prove obstinate and impenitent, there would be just cause of rejecting them from the ordinances and society of the Church; or if this part of the kingdom of Christ would not be born in Congregations, with how much peace and satisfaction to their own souls, and to the consciences of all, should such godly Ministers and people withdraw themselves from them, to a nearer communion one with another?

And shall we not hope that England is capable of such a Reformation as this, if God's faithful Ministers would with one heart and mind endeavor the same? Far, far be it from our dear Country, after all those notable steps unto Reformation, that it should stick in this, which is the life of all the rest. But if it should be so, that either the great ones should be too big to stoop down to the Lord Jesus in the ways of his wholesome Discipline; or the multitude so carnal, worldly, willful, profane, impenitent, as not to reform themselves, families, and so their congregations, humbly submitting to the rule of Christ; or if the Ministers (at least, most of them) should look at preferment, honor, credit, riches, authority over the people, and not mind such a work as this is: And this, after all the heavy, humbling, dreadful judgments of God come upon the Land; after all the glorious out-breakings of the light of the Gospel in many parts of the Kingdom; after all the protestations, covenants, oaths, whereby so many have bound themselves to this particular reformation of themselves, and to further the reformation of the Public; we tremble to speak it, but our hearts cannot but fear it, that woe, woe, woe will be to poor sinful England. It seems to us to be a prophetical speech of Mr. Brinsly, long since at rest with God, when lamenting the profaneness of England, with their connivence at Popery, and compliance with the wicked; he saith, That if the Lord of Hosts do call for them, (meaning the Popish faction) to rise up against us in new conspiracies, or open violence, and with them all the crew of wicked and ungodly men, in whom we have so delighted, to take part with those to our destruction, (as they, it is to be feared, will be as outrageous as the other against all soundly fearing God) is it not just? yea if he should let them make it bellum prodigorum, the day of all the spend-thrifts, and of all the vile persons of the Land, to have their fingers in every man's coffers, and their hands washed in the blood of them, whom they have hated, so soon as ever any of the Babylonish designs shall take their effect, could we wonder at it? And is not this fulfilled in these times? which we wish may well be laid to heart.

The second thing which we conceive may chiefly hinder this closing, is that point of Church government, which concerns the power and liberties of particular Churches or Congregations, and here we must acknowledge the distance is too great. For on the one side, we cannot see either by Treatises, or by the Directory for Worship, that Congregations are acknowledged to be complete Churches, especially standing among other Churches, or that any power or liberty is given to them to administer Church censures, no not so long as they administer rightly according to the rule, but all such power is taken indeed from the Churches, though in words they are persuaded that it is to strengthen them; and if this also come down from the Catholic Church, and so to lesser Synods, the greater part having power over the less, as it were jure divino, it will strike sore at the liberties and power of particular Churches. But what here to say of the distance on the other hand, we cannot tell, we see or read nothing, but that our dear and honored Brethren do freely embrace communion of Churches in consultative Synods, for the brotherly help of each other, and the weaker Churches; yea, and in a doctrinal way to declare the will of Christ, and to threaten his judgments against such as shall refuse wholesome counsel, and withdraw communion from such as willfully refuse to hear what is propounded according to the mind of Christ.

And what should we here say? but on the bended knees of our souls entreat our reverend Brethren to consider what power any or many Churches can challenge over another, to require them to give up their right to them, to rule in common, if a sister Church furnished with Officers shall refuse the same; or what rule bindeth the Churches of an hundred, or any such civil division to come into such a combination with those Churches, rather then others, if that refusing, Churches have just reasons to object against such Churches, or their Officers. We think the more voluntary and free such consociations are, the better: Here we shall be bold to propound this one thing, viz. Why may not the fifth and sixth Articles of agreement publicly professed to the world, in answer to the Prelatical petition, obtain amongst our Brethren, that it may appear to the disappointment of their hopes, that the Prelates being down, the agreement would be easy, as is there said. Viz.

Ar. 5. Each particular Church hath her own power and authority, and the use and benefit of all the ordinances of Christ; neither is there anything to be done without the express or tacit consent of the Congregation, in matters which are proper and peculiar to a particular Church, whether in election or ordination of Ministers, or in admitting or excommunicating of members.

Ar. 6. It is in many respects expedient both for the members of each Church, whether Ministers or people, and for the right governing and well-being of the particular Churches, in a Nation professing Christian Religion, that besides their particular Assemblies and Elderships, they meet by their▪ Commissioners, Ministers, and Elders in greater Assemblies, that matters that concern all the Churches within their bounds respective may with common advice and consent be agreed upon for their good and edification.

And we hope the Lord may yet have such a mercy for England, if the crying sins thereof be not still impenitently against this glorious shining light of the Gospel, persisted in, which we confess is our greatest fear, Godly Brethren we hope would agree, if England's sins hinder not. We confess it was the saddest news that this year came unto our ears, that the Kingdom of Christ is hardly like to obtain, so much jealousy there is, lest the discipline of Christ should, cross▪ the licentionsnesse of this age; yea, that generally there is no more regard of the solemn Covenant, especially in personal reformation, then if it were never made, that many reject the reformations they seemed to desire at the first. These, with other sad things come to our ears, which sadden our spirits. Oh England! England! our beloved England! wilt thou not be made clean? when will it once be? wilt thou still return the Lord Jesus, (graciously striving with thee for to save thee) such an unkind answer, We will not have this man reign over us? hast thou not yet learned so much wisdom, as to kiss the son, no not now when he is angry and the sword in his hand? That voice of God soundeth oft in our ears, when we think of England, Put off thine ornaments, that I may know what to do unto thee; but for ought we hear, the pride of England did never so much testify to their faces as now, when sackcloth and ashes were more suitable. The Lord humble the hearts of our dear Country-men, or else we fear the yoke of Christ will never be born, and how the Lord Jesus will bear and endure that, we tremble to think.

But what do we thus to take upon us, and let loose our Pen so far? pardon, we beseech you, Christian Reader, this seeming boldness, it is our hearty affection to the peace and prosperity of our dear Country, and the Saints of God in it, that have drawn these things from us. Say not, what calling have these thus to admonish and censure us? Censure we do not, (that we would do only to ourselves) but faithfully to admonish and exhort in the Lord, we hope we may presume. Neither have we taken upon us this whole weighty work, of our own minds, but at the request and call of divers our reverend Brethren, whose voice herein we looked upon as the voice of God; nor have we accepted that call, out of any lust we have to contend, or enter the lists of disputation with any. We love the peace of the Churches, and unity and concord with all our dear and godly Brethren too well, to have any such ends. And though we are not unwilling to receive and consider any return that may be made, and we hope with a mind to submit to the truth; yet we must profess Two things chiefly inclined us to undertake this work. First, to clear up such truths as we conceive to be according to the mind of Christ, which were obscured by this Reply. Secondly, (and that especially) hoping that what we should write, would tend rather to a peaceable healing of offenses and differences, then otherwise; and therefore have presumed to Preface thus far, and so to present these our affectionate requests to our dear Brethren, and Country-men, which we heartily recommend to their serious consideration, and to the blessing of God, who only can incline the hearts of men, to attend to anything of God set before them; though we be the meanest and weakest of many, to take upon us, thus to speak to our dear Country-men, yet through the grace of Christ who put us into the Ministry, we have bestowed a great part of our labor in these parts, neither (we hope) altogether in vain; which makes us somewhat the more engaged and encouraged to write as we do. And now having thus far in this Epistle, and in the Book following, testified our love to the truth, and desires of the peace, unity, reformation, and prosperity of our beloved England, and the Churches of God therein, we commend both to the consideration of the Reader, and all to the grace and blessing of Christ Jesus, and rest.

ADUERTISEMENTS TO THE READER.

T O the Epistle of the Author of this Reply we say nothing, because it savors (for the most part) of love and desire of unity, which we thankfully acknowledge; only we cannot but take notice of two passages.

1 A complaint made against some standing affected New-England ward, who have carried it so, as if a chief part of holiness consisted in separation; and that therefore some have separated from all private and public communion there; others from all public, but not from private; others from the Sacraments only, allowing public communion otherwise.

To which we answer, that as the Church fell by degrees into universal pollution, by the Apostasy foretold to be under the Man of Sin; so by degrees it recovers out of it again: If therefore separation reach no farther then separation from sins, and such sins of Churches wherein ourselves in joining with them must be involved, we suppose such separation (all due respect and love reserved and professed to the Churches themselves) cannot justly be accounted unwarrantable; and 'tis the profession of the Author in his Epistle, to plead for communion with the Churches of Christ, no farther then they hold communion with Christ: If any transgress these bounds, either in respect of private or public communion in England, we must profess openly, that if any mourn for it, we are (or would be) companions with them in that grief. Whose heart bleeds not to see God's flock scattered, and needless rents made? that scarce Truth or error can nowadays be received, but it is maintained in a way of Schism; directly contrary to the gathering and uniting Spirit of Jesus Christ: A wide Conscience calls evil, good, and therefore can communicate with any evil; a strait Conscience calls good, evil, (as Gerson observes) and therefore can readily separate even from that which is good. When rash and sudden men are grown masters of their Consciences, it troubles not them from whom they divide, nor whither they run in separate ways; when weak (yet godly men) are under the tenderness, (yet much darkness) of Conscience, being very timorous of ways that are evil, grow many times shy (at least in simplicity are led) from ways that afterward are found to be lawful and good. 'It is the usual misery of English spirits, either to spin the Spiders web, and swallow down all corruptions in Churches; or so to break down the gap in forsaking corruptions utterly to abandon the Churches themselves: The wine of causeless separation hath a spirit in it, (if God graciously prevent not) that hurries men headlong to strange distances, that in separating from public, they separate from private; in separating from corrupt Churches (as no Churches) they separate from the purest, even those of their own; in separating from pollutions of God's ordinances, at last they fall to the storming of some, if not to the utter renouncing of all the Ordinances themselves: we mourn (we say) for such evils, and could with bended knees desire our dear Country-men to consider, whether this be the Spirit of Christ Jesus that so carries them; to reject them whom the Lord Jesus hath not yet wholly forsaken; and not rather with one heart, and with bowels of compassion (if any liberty can be procured) to study how to heal the bleeding breaches, and manifold evils of sick and sinful England, that in their own recovery from pollutions, the whole may arise and share alike with them therein; tolerating with all longsuffering many things amiss, & mourning daily after the Lord, till such times come wherein he will give his people his ordinances, not only in purity, but also in power; when the Lord shall be one, and his name one, Zach. 14. 9. over all the earth. As for ourselves, we look not upon our departure to these parts to be a separation (rigidly taken) but a lawful secession, or a heavenly translation from corrupt to more pure Churches, by the hand of our God; and how far we allow of separation, the ensuing Treatise will declare.

2 The second is, That we dissent one from another as much as others from us, and perhaps the lesser part of us.

Answ. We confess we know but little, and that but in part, and therefore if we should say, that in some things we did not dissent, we should not speak the truth, nor say that we were sinful men; yet this we must speak to his praise whose we are, and whom we serve with our spirits in the Gospel of his Son; that although Satan hath been oft busy to make breaches among us, yet the Ministers of Christ have been hitherto generally (if not all) of one heart and mind in the main and principal things of his Kingdom amongst us: and (which is observed by many) where ever differences are sown, yet the Ministers never disagree: and that although some differences have and do arise before their convening together, yet they never yet met, but grace hath over-wrestled corruption; peace, trouble; and truth, error; and so have most sweetly accorded in one; the thoughts of which Christ-like peaceableness of spirit and love, as it oft sweetens many other sorrows, so we desire to be spared herein, and that this our crown may not be taken from us by such passages, (suggesting great differences) as these be.

Now for the Reply itself, we desire the Reader to consider, that we had neither time, nor Books ready at hand to consider some of the quotations made in the margent; and therefore being such testimonies as cast not the balance one way or another, we have passed most of them by with silence.

It had also been easy for us to have Analysed more orderly the words of the Reply, then as they are set down; but (because we would not do the least wrong) we have set them down as we find them in the Book; not every passage (for that were needless) but those things wherein there seems to be any observable matter of dispute between us; nor are we conscious of doing the Author the least wrong in setting down his own words, as hereafter you find them.

We confess, that in sundry of our Answers, we have studied not only to answer to the Reply, but have taken in what sundry others godly learned object against our principles, but without mentioning (scarce any time) their Names, of which we are sparing for no other reason, but because we honor the men from our very hearts, and could wish (though differently minded from us in some things) as Melanchthon did in another the like case, to live and die in their bosoms. The name of this servant of Christ now asleep, is an ointment poured out and precious to us; we could therefore have wisht it our portion to have answered the Book without the least reflecting upon him, but the necessity herein is unavoidable. This only we add, that whatever weaknesses may pass from us, let them not be imputed to those servants of Christ, that set us on work, and have wanted leisure to review what is here done; Everyone may not be in all things of the same mind with us, for they may meet us in the same end, though they use not the same arguments, or become followers of us in the same path; yet we know we are not alone in anything, but may safely say thus much, that what is here defended, is generally acknowledged and received in these Churches of Christ.

A DEFENCE OF THE NINE POSITIONS.

CHAP. I.

CHAP. II.

Reply.

THis Position cannot bear that meaning which you give it, if you take it according to our minds, and the plain construction of the words. We never questioned why you made not use of a Liturgy, &c.

Answ.

Let our Answer be viewed, and it will appear that we had just cause to premise those distinctions of Forms of Prayer into private and public; and public into such as are imposed by others, or composed and used by Ministers themselves before their Sermons; otherwise we must have involved such in the Position, as we do not condemn. Now if your general thesis justly admit such limitation to public imposed Forms, where shall we find any set stinted imposed Liturgies, but in Churches of the Papacy or Prelacy? no Reformed Churches stinting or imposing their Forms of Prayer, but leaving Ministers and people at much liberty. Only the English Liturgy therefore is such, according to the plain construction of the words.

2 Concerning your minds in the Position, we deny not but you might intend to draw from us an approbation of stinted Liturgies in general, that so you might have to stay the separation of people from your Liturgy, whereof you complain: but by that it appears plainly, what your chief scope and aim was in the Position: according unto which we thought it most safe and pertinent for us to answer. And this we did the rather, for our reason mentioned in our letter, because though all of us could not concur to condemn all set Forms as unlawful, yet we could in this, viz. that though some set Forms may be lawful, yet it will not follow, that this of the English Liturgy is, therefore to remove all obscurities, and break all snares, and resolve the question in the true intent of it, we were forced to distinguish of Forms, and so touch the true Helena of this controversy; and therefore if any shall narrowly observe Mr. Ball his large defense of set Forms in general, they shall find those wings spread forth in a very great breadth, to give some shelter and warmth to that particular Liturgy, then languishing, and hastening (through age and feebleness) towards its last end.

Reply.

It is true, people separate from our Liturgy, because stinted, not because this, or that, or ours in particular.

Answ.

If because it's stinted, then because yours, for we know none properly such, but yours, and it may well be one offense to all godly consciences, that yours are so imposed and stinted as they be: though it is hardly credible to us, (so far as our observation reach) that the main causes of the godly withdrawing from your Liturgy, should be the stinting of it, when so many corruptions in Matter and Form have been objected against it, by the best godly Reformers. And seeing the same persons will join with Prayers of godly Preachers, though they use the same form of prayer usually, and so in a large sense freely stinting themselves thereto, though not properly in such sense as your Liturgy is stinted.

Reply.

But say you, such set Forms used by Preachers are disliked also, and your reasons, especially the two last, why you admit not a stinted Liturgy, conclude against both in our understanding.

Answ.

We deny not but some may dislike the constant use of such Forms, especially when studiously framed with elegancy of phrases, and as the manner of some is; but do any we now speak of, condemn all use thereof? or withdraw from them that use them? which is now the case in hand: For our parts, we neither know such men; or if we did, we should condemn such minds. As for our Reasons in general, or the two last you mention in particular, it passeth our understanding to conceive, how any such inference can be made; if the Reply had formed the inferences from our arguments, it may be we should have seen more by the help of such spectacles. But passing over what we say to the Position, as we interpret it, you think fit to advertise us of some things, which are • ix.

Reply.

Advert. 1. Your reasons why you accept not a stinted Liturgy, are ambiguously propounded, and so, that such as look at stinted Liturgies as images, forbidden Command. 2. may easily draw your words to their meaning.

Answ.

If our Reasons themselves being sound, and unanswered by you, contain anything that may be drawn to such a Position; that cannot arise from the ambiguousnesse of words which are plain, but from their abuse who mis-apply them.

Reply.

Advert. 2. The Reasons you bring against a set form of Prayer, do hold as strong against a set form of Catechism, confession and profession of faith, blessing, baptizing, and singing of Psalms.

Answ.

1 Concerning forms of Catechisms, and confessions of Faith, if religiously and perspicuously framed, we account them of singular use, (though abused by men) nor without some sacred allowance: yet from hence to infer the like use of set Forms of prayers, neither our reasons, nor any other will in force: for Catechisms and Confessions (as well as Psalms) in the nature of the thing, require in some sense a set and limited Form; but public prayers, though they may admit of a set and comely order in the general, to prevent error; yet of their own nature they require no set Form; for God gives us no new matter or doctrine daily to be believed, but he gives new matter of new affection in prayer daily.

2 If by set Forms of Catechisms and Confessions, be meant (according to the terms of the Question) stinted Forms, like stinted Liturgies, i. e. beyond, or short of which, Ministers may not teach, or Christians believe and profess, then we should say the same of these as we do of stinted Forms of Prayer; we confess there is danger in casting by all Forms of Confessions and Catechisms, lest through the instability of ungrounded and heady men, pretending new light, or searching after further light, the Churches adhere to nothing: and their Faith (as the learned Leyden Professors term it) become fides h • raria, or menstrua, The faith of an hour or month, and then cast it off the next. And on the other side there is danger, that by imposing such Confessions too far, that which is indeed further light be suppressed; we therefore think it useful and needful to pave out such high ways of Catechisms and Confessions, so as the subjects of Christ Jesus our King and Law-giver may walk therein without shackles, reserving liberty for further future light, in points less clear, yet standing in a readiness always to confess and hold fast the present truth which appears most clear.

3 Concerning Forms of blessing, baptizing, singing Scripture Psalms, there is a far differing reason from this case, for the Lord himself hath left us Forms in these cases, not only for instruction, but allowing the use of the same, as Numb. 6. 23, &c. Luke 10. 5. Matth. 28. 20. 2 Chron. 29. 30. and therefore such may be used as he hath left; yet the Lord hath not imposed (some of these at least) to be used always and only in his Churches, much less doth he allow any man to impose their own Forms upon his Churches, or conform to such as are tyrannously imposed.

Reply.

Third Advert. We have not called you at this time to witness for, or against the corruptions of the Common-prayer-book, this you fall upon by straining the sense of our demands.

Answ.

We have spoken to this before, and we think whatsoever your intent and desire was, yet the nature of the thing, and the case it self gave us a just call to testify against it, especially seeing the corruptions then increased in England, and the impositions were more rigid and violent.

Reply.

The reasons you bring against the Communion-book, we cannot approve them all; the exceptions against it we know, but to esteem the whole for some corruptions found therein a Monument of Idolatry, that we have not learned.

Answ.

The Answer calls it not a Monument of Idolatry for some corruptions only found in it, though the corruptions in matter and manner, be objected as the first reason why we used it not; but being never commanded of God, greatly abused unto Idolatry and superstition, and o • no necessary use, the same that was in Popery for substance, which are the usual arguments for abolishing Images, Ceremonies, and all Monuments of Idolatry; and we marvel how any could pass over these things in the Answer which might evince it to be a Monument of Idolatry, as the argument of the Abridgement to which we referred, doth prove.

Reply.

The argument in the Abridgement used against conformity to the Ceremonies, did not in the judgment of the Authors bold against the Liturgy, of which judgment we are.

Answ.

It matters not whether they saw so far, and so judged, if indeed the reason and nature of Ceremonies, and the book be the same; for the first Reformers thought their arguments strong against oil, cream, and spittle, &c. in Baptism, but saw not that they would hold against the Cross, Surplice, &c. as well; yet we doubt not but the Reverend Author did judge of all in the same manner; and so it is in this case.

Reply.

Advert. 4. If these reasons be intended only to show why you receive not our form of administration, it is that which we are persuaded you know we never required of you, if to disallow the use of the Book amongst us altogether in things lawful, good, and pertinent, they will not hold weight.

Answ.

1 We were told in the first Epistle of our Reverend and dear Brethren, that whiles we lived in England, we joined in the same Ordinances and purity of worship, and therefore we might have some just cause to clear up our differing practice from disusing that form of Administration there, considering that our differing practice might occasion others to rend off from your Administrations there, whereof you complain.

2 We doubt not but in the Popish Forms of Mass, Matten, and Evensong, &c. some things lawful, good, and pertinent may be found, yet would not the godly allow these very reasons we allege in the Answer sufficient to refuse the whole Form, and so those good and lawful things in that Form? as that they are devised by men, without the command of God, imposed by an Antichristian power, abused to Idolatry and Superstition, wherein the people place much holiness, and necessity, full of scandal, &c. and if these Reasons do not hold against this Form in the Communion book, the Reply should have aquitted it from them: or else the consequence must be yielded in this case, as in the other, notwithstanding all the good and pertinent things therein. John Sim • son, and John Ardly Martyrs in Q. Mary's days, and faithful Witnesses, made answer to the sixth article of Bonner, concerning the Mass, that 'tis of the Pope, not of Christ, and therefore not good, not having in it any goodness, saving Gloria in excelsis, the Epistles and Gospels, the Creed and Pater Noster; and for this cause (they said) they have not, nor will not come to hear Mass: the same answer was made by six more in those days, mentioned by Mr. Fox. If therefore corrupt Forms may be used because of some things good and lawful mixed with them, there should have been shewn us some proof for it, but if the meaning be, that there may be a lawful use of those things which are lawful and good in it: we say so too, (due circumstances of their use being observed) but then we fall off from the question between us; otherwise we know that things lawful and good in themselves, yet (not duly circumstantiated) may be evil and scandalous in their use. Hear what Paul saith, it was lawful for Paul to eat some kinds of meat, yet if it maketh my brother offend, I will eat no flesh whiles the world standeth, 1 Cor. 8. 13. Hear what the Authors of the second admonition to the Parliament say, in Queen Elizabeth's days, the Book of Commonprayer, which of all others must not be touched, because they have gotten the State to bear it out, yet he hath but a bad conscience, that in this time will hold his peace, and not speak it for fear of trouble; knowing that there are such intolerable abuses in it: if there were never an ill word or sentence in all the Prayers, yet to appoint it to be used, or to use it, as the Papists did their Matins and Evensong, as a fit service to God, though the words be good, yet the use is naught. But if this seem too sharp, hear what—a late godly and learned Writer speaks, Rejicimus ill as precum, cultusque publici formulas, quae tyrannide quâdam, conscientiis hominum, ut • ultus divini partes essentiales impo •• ntur; quamvis quoad materiam sunt legitime dispositae, quoad formam & modum tamen quo inducuntur, illegitima crudelit • tis instrumenta fiunt, & praetextus improbae malitiae & occasiones violentae tyrannidis in dignissimos & optimos Ecclesiae filios.

Reply.

Advert. 5. You are generally (you say) loath to meddle with the affairs of other Churches, unless necessarily called thereunto: but when some upon request (as we suppose) of private friends, and others out of their zeal and forwardness have labored to draw many to separate from the sacrament, because ministered in a stinted Liturgy, we cannot apprehend any just ground of this Apology; the rent is wide, and some brethren bad their hands deep therein, which made u • crave your judgments and the reasons thereof, to make up the breach.

Answ.

1 What you impute to some, if justly, we grant will not allow this apology to be general for all; but how many that some is, or who we know not, it may be one or two; and if so, one or two exceptions will not much infringe a general rule, nor hinder this general apology.

2 If such brethren had a necessary Call to speak or write what they did, it hindereth not our apology at all: the desire of private friends, which you only suppose the moving cause, might be very weighty, the satisfying of tender consciences of near friends, or such as once depended upon our Ministry, in such a time of pressing human inventions upon men, as that was; might be a very urgent call to interpose: but that any have endeavored out of zeal to draw many to separation from the Sacrament, upon such a ground as you say; as we utterly dislike such fire upon the top of the house, so it must be proved, before we can call to mind or acknowledge any such thing.

Reply.

Advert. 6. J. D. object to Mr. P. that his manner of preaching (proceeding it should be) was disorderly, in carrying to the Classis a matter, before he had declared it to the Church, &c. and may not we with like reason object that this manner of proceeding is disorderly, in seeking to draw men to separation, because of a stinted Liturgy, before you had shown us or other Brethren, whom it may concren, by Scripture, or reasons that a stinted Liturgy is unlawful?

Answ.

What J. D. objects, we cannot tell, seeing you neither quote the place, nor the Printer give us his words in any way to make sense; but so far as we guess at the meaning, the case is very wide from this in hand. J. D. might justly complain of wrong offered to him and the Church, in neglecting them, to go immediately to the Classis, and yet some of our Brethren, at the requests of tender consciences, might declare their judgment, when no rule called them to write to their Pastors, which perhaps, were bitter persecutors, or if better, yet such as they had no knowledge of; and if any by such writings did abstain from the sacrament for such corruptions, as their consciences would be defiled with, no hindrance from us was in the way, but that you might call them to account before the Church, and convince and censure them, if there were just cause; which was the objection against Mr. P. in flying presently to the Classis.

CHAP. III.

Reply.

IF we mistake not your judgment and practice both, you have born witness against both that you call the rigid separation, and this more moderate also; and we humbly wish that the moderate do not degenerate into the rigid ere long; it is very strange if they take not great encouragement upon your grounds.

Answ.

If you will needs account not joining in that stinted imposed Liturgy, to be a moderate separation, we must confess, we have witnessed against such separation; yea, not only conformed to that corrupt Worship, but also to divers of the Ceremonies thereof, some of us with shame before the Lord may confess it: But we desire that may be no prejudice to the truth since discovered to us: but we have ever conceived, that the separation witnessed against, both by yourselves and us, have been such as to separate from the Churches of England as no true Churches, the Ministry, as no true Ministry: their separations from corruptions in Doctrine and Worship, their endeavor to enjoy all the ordinances of the Lord Jesus in purity, if we be not mistaken, your judgment and practice with ours, have always approved; and the question now in hand is not about a new kind of separation more moderate, from the Churches and Ministry of England; but whether the Liturgy of England be not indeed one of those corruptions in Worship, which you and we had need reject, as well as the ceremonies, and no longer conform to the same. And we heartily wish that the growing endeavors of the godly, after more purity of Worship, and to be purged from all the pollutions of the man of sin, be not too rashly branded with the odium of separation: and breach of peace and unity of the Church. As for degenerating into the rigid separation, we think you need not fear it, upon our principles, no more then upon the common grounds of Non-conformists, and you know what they infer upon those principles, now justly it concerns you to consider, as well as us; but as it is truly observed in England, it was the justification and pressing of ceremonies and other corruptions, that drave many to separation, not the endeavor of further Reformation; so you may fear, the too too much conformity of Ministers to human impositions, and justification of the Liturgy, &c. have and will more dangerously alienate godly minds from your Churches and Ministry, and so drive to separation; then all the principles and progress of the godly in ways of reformations: and we shall refer it to the judicious and common experience, whether the discovery of the corrupt worship in the Liturgy, or contrary conformity to it, be the greater block of offense, and strengthens the hands of the Separatists most, which yet you after object unto us.

We suppose the Worthies of this renowned Parliament, together with those of the reverend Assembly, would not so soon have removed the whole frame and fabric of this Book, nor wholly stopped up this pit, if building of battlements about it, and keeping watchmen near it, to bid passengers take heed, had been the readiest way to cure separation: nor do we think that this reverend man of God, would have been in more jealousy and fear of us (if he had considered how tenderly we returned our answer to the question) then of those faithful witnesses in Scotland, who separated their lives into the hands of death, rather then communicate in the use of this Book; and yet we think they deserve a better place, then to be ranked so near to the rigid separation; notwithstanding for ourselves we are heartily thankful for what he humbly wisheth, and for his jealousy over us so far as it is godly; but so far as such wishes cast a cloud of evil suspicion over us in the hearts of others, as if we were going faster then we knew where to stay, we wish humbly such words had been spared till some other time.

Concerning this distinction, a letter of this subject is cited, printed without the Authors knowledge, that put a difference indeed between the reasons of the Separatists proper to them qua tales, and other reasons used by himself, common to others studious of Reformation. To which we answer.

1 That letter acknowledgeth no such distinction of separation, rigid, and moderate, only (if you will) a separation from Churches, and separation from the sins and corruptions of Churches, which latter is all we profess.

2 Those Reasons which the letter ascribes to them, qua tales, will we suppose be found in their Books thus far, that the Prayers, Preachings, Sacraments, &c. are unlawful, because offered in a false Church by a false Ministry for the subjects of Antichrists kingdom.

That there should be no Separatists in the world, because none, it is said none, pl • ad against the Book of Common-prayer as unlawful, because offered up in a false Church; is strange to us, that this learned Author should not read or observe the same, exceeding frequently in the Separatists writings; take but a taste in the first pages of Mr. Smith against Bernard in his parallels, censures, and observations, his words pag. 9. are these, He would prove that an erroneous constitution of a Church, is a real Idol; and the prayers they offer with the prayers of the wicked, coming from that false constitution, are tainted with the Idolatry of that constitution. And pag. 10. It is Idolatry to offer up service to God in a Church of a false constitution. And pag. 13. Tell me Mr. Bernard, can there be a true Ministry, true baptism, true faith, true prayer, true preaching and administering the supper, true excommunication, in a Church which is falsely constituted? Did the Lord accept the sacrifice of the Church constituted by Jeroboam? so page 14. A Church falsely constituted, is not accepted of God, neither are their actions ecclesiastical, as prayer, preaching, &c. acceptable in the sight of God. And again, a false Ministry, Worship, government, may be in a true Church, through ignorance, and the like: but a true Ministry, worship, government cannot possibly be in a false Church. We think it needless to recite more testimonies; Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, A good memory may sometimes fall asleep, and not see that, which is sometimes most obvious and visible. But what other arguments they have, are, or may be common to others studious of Reformation, as their arguments against ceremonies are common with Non-conformists, and therefore if some of our grounds be found in them, it doth not follow, they are shafts taken out of the same quiver, and peculiar to them, as you object.

Reply.

Th • se reasons shall be common to all, that plead for the purity of God's Ordinances, which were never taken to be sound and true, either by the Reformed Churches abroad, or by the godly Brethren at home, dead or living, or yet by the most of the Brethren amongst whom they live, and hold society, or by any Minister and society holding the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, these 1400. years and upward, unless within these few days, and that by a few only.

Answ.

Here is a great color of Novelty and singularity objected to be in the grounds and reasons of the Letter, used against conformity to the Liturgy: but it is easy to conceive that the same common grounds of all Reformers, may be justly carried on against such further corruptions, as they never saw: not attending their own principles in such particulars, as was said before of the first Reformers, that purged out salt, cream, oil, &c. not the cross, &c. and so here it may fall out, that as the Lord is pleased to let in more light in this or that particular corruption; so upon common grounds it is rejected, though yet but one or few apply those grounds to such a particular case. Neither here was the number so few as is pretended, when this Reply was drawn up, or else at least, it is much increased of late time, since the Assembly and Parliament in England have so openly in their Directory witnessed against such stinted Forms, and generally the Churches of Scotland renounced that Liturgy of yours, as a piece of Popery. Besides all the Orthodox Churches in New-England, and Holland, and many godly in England.

Reply.

As yet we think most of them, that have separated are not so far gone, as to condemn all our Assemblies as no Churches of Christ.

Answ.

By this you seem to insinuate, that notwithstanding our acknowledgement of your Churches and Ministry, we may justly be accounted amongst those we properly call Separatists: but it is but your thought of most of them, without ground, contrary to their general profession in their public confessions and apologies. And therefore we see no reason of it, or that it toucheth us; but passing these generals, let us come to the matter more particularly.

Reply.

Your judgment concerning the Position, you deliver in three Propositions (for so many they be for substance) in respect of the persons reading the Liturgy, or the thing it self that is read; as if any part of the Liturgy be read (put case some few select prayers only) by an unable and ungodly Minister, it is unlawful (say you) for the people to join in that case. But if unlawful for the people to join, when an ungodly Minister readeth some few select prayers, it is either in respect of the Minister, or the prayers themselves; not of the Prayers themselves, for they be select and choice, faultless, in respect of matter and manner, as is taken for granted, unless this distribution be to no purpose; if in respect of the Minister, then it is not lawful to join with such an one, in any ordinance of God whatsoever.

In that you analyse our two Propositions into three, we shall not contend, but follow your method, yet we cannot but marvel at the liberty that is taken in stating the first Proposition, both leaving out and adding such things as will not stand with the terms in our Answer; and indeed this is too frequent in divers places of this Reply, which gives a great color of strength unto the arguments; but when they come to be scanned, it will discover the impertinency of them.

For, 1 Although the Answer distinguisheth of the Liturgy, either of the whole, or of some select prayers which may be conceived to be less offensive, yet the application of this of select prayers, is only made in the second proposition of the Answer, no way intended in the first. Neither doth the Answer confess those prayers, as you say, to be choice and faultless for matter and manner, but which may be conceived less offensive.

2 Whereas the Proposition is of an unable and ungodly Minister, such unlearned Idol-Priests that are countenanced and established by the Liturgy, and can do no more then read the same, to the unspeakable hazard and ruin of a multitude of souls; you carry along your arguments only in the term of an ungodly Minister, which leaves out one chief ground of our proposition, viz. unable.

To reduce therefore this proposition unto its true state which the answer puts it in, which is thus, If the question be of joining in prayer with, and when that whole Liturgy is read, or where that which is used, ( viz. though not the whole) is read by an unable and ungodly Minister: we see not how it can be lawful to join, &c. where that which is read by an unable and ungodly Minister, cannot have reference to the select prayers, but only was put in, to reach the whole case, lest any should say, may we not join, therefore if they read not all, (as sometimes such do not, for haste to the Alehouse, Bear-baitings, &c.) And the case is so well known to ourselves and others, what the manner of such Priests is, how far they are from making any choice of select prayers: or having any skill indeed so to do; that if any be more superstitious then others, they would soonest choose them; so that it was far from our thoughts to impute it to them, to read the select prayers only. The question being rightly stated, the argument will halt very much; For we say, it is unlawful in both respects, and the rather, when jointly considered; and therefore you should first have justified the whole Liturgy, or so much as such Idol-Priests use to read to be lawful, and also the standing and calling of those men, before the argument can hold, both which you have wholly left naked without proof, and argue only about the lawfulness of joining with an ungodly Minister in the Ordinances of God, which will not reach this case. If one should affirm it is unlawful to go to Matins or Evensong, when the whole is read, or that which is read, is done by a popish Priest, and you should answer then, it is either because of the Prayers or the Priest. Not the first; for the prayers (if select) may be good, and faultless, and not because of the Priest, for then we may never join with an ungodly Minister in the Ordinances of God: The answer would be very imperfect and impertinent, and just so it is here in the frame of the reason, though the corruptions in that service and this be not alike we grant. But before we answer to the second part of your dis-junction, let us consider a little here once for all, the act of the people in joining with the reading of this Liturgy, or so much of it, as is read usually by such Idol-priests. First, concerning the Liturgy it self, if you respect the matter and form, or manner of it, it would be too tedious to rip up, what for matter hath been objected by the godly Reformers. Consider but two things objected strongly by Mr. Cartwright against the form or manner of it. First, that it is taken out of the Popish Mass-book, concerning which he affirmeth, that although there were nothing in it unlawful, or against the Word of God, (which saith he) I wish there were not, yet no Word of God, no reason, nor example of the Ancient Churches, Jewish or Christian, will permit us to use the same forms and ceremonies ( viz. with Papists) being neither commanded of God, nor such as there may not be as good as they, and rather better established, yea considering how near the Papists live amongst us, it were more safe to conform to the Ceremonies of the Turks that are far off. And this he speaketh of the form of Liturgy, as well as Ceremonies, Cartw. reply to Whitgifts answer to the admonition to the Parliament, pag. 131, 132. And although you seem to make light of this objection, after page 15. end, yet in a like case, when Whitgift had said, it is not material that Deans, Canons came from the Pope; Cartwright replieth thus; It is as if he had said, it skilleth not, if they came out of the bottomless pit; for whatsoever cometh from the Pope, who is Antichrist, comes first from the Devil, Cartw. Reply, pag. 204.

Secondly, he objecteth that absurd manner of chopping and interrupting the prayers, of which Mr. Cartwright saith, That if any man should make such a supplication to a Prince, he would think him to make his supplication before he knew what to ask, or that he had forgotten some piece of his suit; or that he were distracted in his understanding. Much more might be added, but we have only touched this sore, and in the words of that learned and zealous Reformer, that it may appear, neither the opinion of that Book, nor the reasons against it, are so new or proper to the Separatists, as is pretended. Now what comfort can anygodly conscience have to join in, or conform unto such a form of Worship as this is?

Further consider the administration of the Sacraments, according to the Book (as we speak still of joining in it) who knows not, that such must subject their children to that gross Idol of the cross, and see and approve the pollution of God's Ordinances with the same: and at the Lord's table join in that Idolatrous gesture of kneeling; and therefore how the godly can join lawfully in the whole, or such parts as those Idol-priests dispense, let all Non-conformists judge; and it is well known, how superstitiously precise such are, in pressing all conformity to every gesture and ceremony prescribed in their Book, which they so idolize, as they have good cause, being that which maintains them.

Secondly, if we consider the imposition hereof by the Prelates and late strict pressing thereof upon the people to be present and conform fully to it, as well as upon Ministers to use it. The very yielding of conformity thereto, doth miserably cast away the liberty purchased by Christ to his Churches, enthrall the Churches to Antichrist, and lift up the power of Antichrist in his tyrannous usurpations upon the Churches of Christ.

Thirdly, we might add the dangerous consequences and scandals that follow from admitting this Liturgy, which being touched in our answer to the first Position, we here pass over.

These things considered, it appears, not only that there was need to disprove the first part of your disjunction, which you declined in stating the question; but also the truth of the Position it self is confirmed. Now let us consider your proof of the second part of your disjunction; which is thus,

Reply.

If in respect of the Minister, then it is not lawful to join with such an one in any Ordinanee of God. For if the Minister make it unlawful, then all communion in any part of God's Worship with such Ministers is unlawful: and so the Churches in all ages of the world, the Prophets, our Savior Christ, the Apostles, and the faithful in the Primitive Church, sinned in holding communion with such, when the Priests were dumb dogs, &c. but we never read that the Prophets, our Savior Christ, the Apostles did ever forbear themselves, or warn the faithful not to communicate with such in the ordinances of Worship. Our Savior charged the Disciples to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, but never forbad them to communicate with them in the ordinances of God.

Answ.

To this we answer; First, that if you speak to the case in hand of those unable and ungodly Ministers of England, Readers (as they are called) of the Common-service, we grant it is not lawful to communicate in a stated way with them, in any ordinance of Worship properly Ministerial; in any act that private persons may perform, we may communicate with them, but not in Ministerial work, as Sacraments; for although being imposed on any Church as Ministers, and so received by them, their Ministerial acts are not a nullity; yet if we speak of the lawfulness of such their act of receiving them, then the Church sinneth in choosing them, or being imposed, in receiving them, and submitting to their Ministry, being such as are utterly contrary to the rule of Christ, and rejected of him. And by the like reason the godly sin in receiving Sacraments, &c. from them, as Ministers of Christ, knowing they intrude into that office, and have no authority by the rule of Christ so to do. We may hear a private gifted Christian prophecy, but if he intrude without a lawful calling into the Ministry, we may not receive him, nor approve of him therein.

Cyprians speech is commonly noted, that Plebs maxim habe • potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi; yet the occasion of it is not so generally observed, which is this, Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis, Deum metuens, à peccatore proposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegia sacerdotis sacrificia miscere, • um ipse maxim habet potestatem eligendi, &c. that is, the people observing divine precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a wicked Minister, neither join themselves to the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest, seeing they chiefly have power of choosing worthy Ministers, and rejecting unworthy.

Secondly, we see no demonstrative argument that the Priests and Pharisees were wholly unable for the work of those times, as these we speak of are for—: though the Priests, Isaiah 56. 10. were dumb dogs that cannot bark; yet it seems by the place to be meant actually, rather then habitually, through their slumbering or security there mentioned, not telling the people of their sins, nor warning them of judgments, rather then of their total inability. Men of good parts and able gifts may be actually such dumb dogs, as seldom preach, or never to purpose, and be spiritually ignorant through much profaneness, yet not totally deprived of common gifts: It is most evident that the Pharisees were blind, yet taught the people, and hence the Disciples were permitted to hear them; but what is this to the question, which is of unable, as well as of ungodly Ministers?

Thirdly, suppose some of the Priests and Levites were unable, yet the Ministry of the Old Testament was limited by God himself to the tribe of Levi, and that by succession, which is far otherwise in the New Testament, being left to the Churches election, and therefore they had no power to reject them, o • withdraw from them, when they had ministered the ordinances of God.

Fourthly, suppose some of them were not called of God, being not lineally descended of that tribe, yet those things wherein the faithful, Christ and his Apostles, and others did communicate with them, were necessarily commanded of God, viz. sacrifices, offerings, &c. in the Temple, which seal of God we see not stamped upon this Liturgy in question, to make it currant. And thus Peter Martyr answereth in the like case, that though there were many pernicious doctrines taught by Scribes, Pharisees and wicked Priests, yet sacrificandi ritus, &c. the rites of sacrificing were not changed; for the same oblations were offered, which the Law commanded, and therefore the Saints might use them, having the word of God conjoined with them.

Fifthly, what you grant concerning Christ his warning his Disciples to take heed of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, no doubt he did the like, concerning the corruptions of the Priests in their administrations of God's ordinances, and we doubt not, but you will acknowledge that the Prophets and Apostles did or ought to abstain from all actual communion with those corruptions, and the Lord Jesus out of question did abstain: which being so, we may retort this argument thus in regard of conformity to ceremonies, If it be not lawful to partake in the Ordinances of God, where we must actually join with such ceremonies, then Christ, the Prophets and Apostles must not have joined in any ordinance of God in several ages of the Church, when worse or as ill corruptions were admixed with that worship: But they never refused the ordinances of worship for such corruptions; Therefore we should not now for these ceremonies abstain; put case for kneeling at the Lord's Supper, &c. If you please to solve this knot, the same answer will serve our turn as well.

Reply.

It is not for private Christians to withdraw themselves from the ordinances of worship, and communion of the Church, because such are permitted to deal in the holy things of God, whom they judge or know unfit; when men join in the worship of God with unworthy Ministers, they do not countenance them, their place and office, but obey the commandment of God, who requires their attendance upon his highness in that way and means.

Answ.

First, we grant it is not always for private Christians so to leave the communion of a Church in the ordinances of God, for such a reason, but if they have first done their part according to their place to reform or cast out such an unworthy and unable ministry, and cannot, or see no hope to procure one sufficient to edify the Church, he may and ought to betake himself to some other Church, where he may be edified, and it is a great mistake to think, (in the constitution of the Gospel) that a Christian cannot reject all fellowship with such Idol Priests, but he must forsake the ordinances of Christ, or rent off from the Church, when indeed he deprives himself of many ordinances in joining with them, and attains them in forsaking of them.

Secondly, if we consider wherein the outward call of all Church Officers in the New Testament lies, viz. in a great part in the choice of the Church, or at least in their after consent and receiving of them, being chosen by others for them, Act. 1. and 6. and 14. how can any godly man receive, submit unto, or acknowledge such unable wretches by receiving God's ordinances from them, as Ministers, but they must needs countenance them in their places, and set up to themselves an Idol or means of worship to edify themselves, which God never appointed; for let it be proved that ever God appointed readers of a Liturgy to edify the people.

Answ.

Thirdly, but that to join in worship with such should be to obey God's command, who requires attendance upon himself in that way and means, we think it a speech not so thoroughly digested, if we carry in our eye the case now in hand, concerning these Idol Priests and Silver shrines. For where can they show any such command? or why hath it been suffered by any of our Brethren, that the godly living under such Priests, have been so frequently absent from them, reading the liturgy, to hear their Sermons? Nay why have they not told them, they were bound to attend upon God in hearing their Sir John read at home? We appeal to all consciences, whether they would approve of any godly man, that would rest in such means, and not call him to leave all his outward conveniences, for some godly able Ministry: or at least not to attend on them, but get where they may be better edified.

Reply.

To go no further then the Text you quote, Hosea 4. 6, 7. Because thou hast despised knowledge I have rejected thee; properly the Text speaketh of the ten Tribes and the Priests amongst them, who worshipped the Calves, &c. whom the Lord threatens to reject; but neither this nor any other Text proves, that people joining in worship with such, do countenance them in their places.

Answ.

The Text proves that God rejects such Priests as these are, (just like Jeroboams Priests of the meanest of the people) and that was all it was alleged for, and that receiving such as Ministers doth countenance them in their places, was proved before. And if it be meant of Jeroboams Priests, as you say, the approved practice of the godly in those days, 2 Chron. 11. 16. will well justify and lead us to reject and leave these also.

Secondly, there seems to be four arguments, why the people should withdraw from these kind of Priests: First, in regard of their miserable perishing for want of knowledge by their means. Secondly, because the people in receiving them, rejected knowledge, as Calvin notes upon the place. Thirdly, because God would take a time to disburthen the Church of them, whence Drusius in locum wisheth, utinam tales body à ministerio amoverentur. Fourthly, because the Lord would cast off their children from being his, for this sin, as Calvin also notes upon the place; the promise of showing mercy to a 1000. generations, being chiefly annexed to the observers of the second Command, and the instituted means of worship, which those Priests never were.

Reply.

On the contrary, if you will extend this Text to all unworthy Ministers of what sort soever, whom the Word of God condemns, as not approved Ministers of God, &c.

Answ.

We intended no other sorts then such as we have in hand, the unable and ungodly Idol Priests of England, and therefore this discourse concerns us not. For we freely confess, that it is lawful in divers cases, at least for a time, to communicate with such unworthy Ministers as may be contained in your description: but that people must and ought to join with such in the worship of God, and sin, if they separate from the ordinances, (as you say) the Scriptures alleged teach not this so evidently, that we can see, as 1 Sam. 2. 12, 13. 17. 24. that imputation, Verse 24. They make the Lord's people to transgress, doth not depend immediately on Verse 13, 14. 17. but on Verse 22. 23. where they are charged to have layne with the women, the other passages being interrupted by the story of Samuel and his Mother, Verse 18, 19. 20, 21. So Jer. 8. 8, 9. Micah 3. 11, 12. contain only threats against wicked Ministers, but not a word to prove people ought to join with them, &c. Phil. 1. 15. speaking of such as preach and preach Christ, though not of sincerity, doth not reach such Ministers as the word condemns: for many such may be approved Ministers by the Word, having a call according to the same; but we shall not contend in this case, wherein we do not dissent, so that Christians be left to their lawful liberty of withdrawing from Ministers grossly wicked, and Teachers of false Doctrine, or idle and insufficient, when they cannot reclaim them, or remove them in the use of all lawful means within their power.

Reply.

The reasons whereby the ancient Churches condemned the Donatists and Catharists for their voluntary and seditious separations, and the moderne Churches condemn the Anabaptists for their renting from the body of Christ, will hold against separation from the Prayers of the Congregation, because they are read by an ungodly Minister.

We deny that we teach or hold such separation, because read by an ungodly Minister, as is sufficiently shown before; but what we speak is against conformity to and communion with the corruptions of the Liturgy especially used by an unable as well as ungodly Minister, and therefore the arguments mentioned will hold against our proposition, just as the accusations and imputations of Donatism, Puritanism, Anabaptism, which the Prelates cast upon all Non-conformists and men studious of reformation, will hold and fasten upon them, which is nothing at all.

Reply.

The second Proposition, where the whole Liturgy is used though by an able and godly Minister, it is not lawful to join in prayer in that case; We cannot be of your judgment herein, for in the times of the Prophets, and our Savior Christ as great abuses no question were found, &c. but they never taught people to separate from the holy things of God.

Answ.

First, we must still mind the Reader of the true and full state of the question, which in our answer is of joining in prayer, with, and when that whole Liturgy is used, and he that joins with that whole Liturgy must needs be supposed to have actual communion with all the corruptions thereof what ever they be, and therefore though this Proposition reach to the practice of able and godly Ministers, yet let none think we plead herein separation from their ministry, but only that people may not conform with them to any corruption in worship, and by this proposition also the Author might easily have seen that we denied the other (which was woven in with this) not because of the ungodliness of the Minister alone as he carried his dispute, but chiefly in respect of the corruptions of the worship, together with the unlawfulness of such a ministry that is both unable and ungodly.

Secondly, concerning the argument it runs as full for conformity to all the corrupt ceremonies of the book as the corrupt worship it self therein, as was said before, clear the one, viz. nonconformitie to ceremonies, show a reason why you will separate from the Sacrament, because you will not kneel according to the book, and you answer your argument here alleged against us: but the reply proceeds.

Reply.

And if presence at forms of prayer be not lawful by reason of the corruptions alleged, there can be no visible society named, since 200. years after Christ or thereabout, wherein a Christian might lawfully join in prayer, reading the Scriptures, hearing the word, or participation of the Sacraments; their Doctrines, prayers, rights being less pure then ours: but no man we hope will be so bold as to affirm the state of the Churches within 200. years after Christ to be so miserably decayed that the faithful could not without sin hold communion with them in the foresaid ordinances of God.

Answ.

First, this argument holds as strongly for conformity to the ceremonies as to the whole book of Common Prayers, as was said before.

Secondly, this is a dangerous kind of reasoning from the practice of the faithful in corrupt times of the Church, especially when they are declining, and growing clouds of darkness, and superstition overspread the Churches. It is no breach of charity to think that through the iniquity of the times, the godly lived in many evils through ignorance and weakness which after light is come into the Churches we ought to abandon wholly; these are times of light and of the consumption of Antichrist, and time for us to abolish his Liturgies and corrupt forms of worship as well as Images, ceremonies, &c. Who do not pity the weakness of godly Bilny and others that seeing some gross corruptions were yet so devoutly obedient to the Church (as they called it) in many gross superstitions? and the like may be said of those former times, and we see not but this reason will go far in justification of communion with many false worships of Antichrists that are not grossly idolatrous.

Thirdly, it is a great charge upon those times to say no visible society throughout the world can be named since 200. years after Christ, that was not less pure then England in Doctrine, rites, &c. It may be, that as generally Churches were corrupt, so they contemned and censured such as professed more purity: but that there were some visible assemblies more pure may be conceived by that testimony given to Arius and many orthodox Christians with him, though condemned for a Heretic, in that which we all now hold to be an undoubted truth; also after the Waldenses casting off the Pope and his will worships, and the following reformed Churches, those of Scotland, Geneva, and divers others in France and Switserland, &c. whose Doctrines, rites and administrations we doubt not will be confessed more pure then English Churches. It would be too tedious, and in these knowing times needless to search all records and to compare the purity of the prayers, and rites of these with former times, we read of very few forms used for 300. years, some short ones they had which are retained yet in our Liturgy, with many more, and those forms they had, not imposed nor stinted, which is the great offense of this, until about the year 406. and there we read in the Milevit • n Council that no prayers should be used in Churches but what were either composed of able and sufficient men, or approved by the Synods, and this was determined only in regard of the ignorant Ministry of those contentious and heretical times, as Chemnitz observes, ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam, vel per minus studium sit compositum. If the Roman Bishops did multiply (as indeed they did excessively (unless their own admirers err grossly) rites and forms of prayer, yet it is well known how long it was ere the Churches in other places submitted to their power, so that this comparison might well have been spared. To conclude, though we say not that all Churches since 200. years after Christ were so miserably decayed, that the faithful might not without sin communicate with them, yet we may be bold to say many of them were so corrupt, that the faithful did not, nor could not communicate in many parts of God's worship without sins of ignorance conforming to the corruptions themselves; and that if they had seen and discovered the evil of them, they ought, and we believe would have abstained from divers ordinances in regard of the corrupt administrations of them; yea after all means used to purge them out, and not prevailing, they ought and would have withdrawn themselves to more pure Churches, or erected such amongst themselves.

Reply.

The prayers of the Ministers conceived or stinted in a set form be not his private prayers, but the public prayers of the assembly; but you will not say the people ought not to join with their pastour therein if ought be amiss, for matter, manner, or both.

Answ.

There is a wide difference between the whole Liturgy, so imposed, and so clogged, as is before shown: and such prayers of the Minister having something amiss. But you may put the case so, as it would be unlawful for people to join in such prayers also: as if the Minister for matter usually pray to Saints, for manner, turn himself, and fix his eye on a Crucifix.

Reply.

It is all one to the people in this • ase, whether the fault be personal (as some distinguish) or otherwise; known before hand or not known; for if simple presence defile, whether known before hand or not, all presence is faulty, and if simple presence defile not, our presence is not condemned by reason of the corruptions known, whereof we stand not guilty.

Answ.

First, we distinguish not here between personal and ministerial faults, but object against the personal act of him that joins with that whole Liturgy, and so in the corruptions of it, as he must needs do, that joins with the whole, not only saying Amen to them, but as is known he takes his share in those shreds of prayers, Responds, &c. which in Mr. Cartwrights judgment is so absurd, as makes a man seem out of his wits. And therefore his personal, actual conformity must needs carry guilt, and therefore there is more then simple presence in this case, as is clear to any understanding.

Secondly, it is not all one whether the faults be known, or not known before hand, as appears plainly, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28, 29. where we see, if a man come to a feast, and know not they eat with reference to the Idol, nor that any take offense, he may eat without asking any question: but if he know such things, he may not eat.

Besides, public sinful actions of Ministers are either, 1 Accidental & occasional, or 2ly. known & appointed in a stated service; now the frailties of a Minister, which accidentally fall in and are not known before, nor are any part and essence of the service, unto which men that come, do or should take themselves to be called, hinder not communion; because they do not prae se ferre by their presence to attend and observe them, but the corruptions of the Liturgy are known and appointed, and to which and with which the imposers call others to join as in a stated service to God; the use of which if it be an human frailty in God's Ministers, not yet convinced of the evil thereof, yet for those to communicate herein, who know such evils, have surely passed the bounds of frailty and infirmity; because in this action of prayer there is not only communion by way of presence, as it is in hearing the word; but communion of action: public prayer being the common action of the whole Church towards God. There can be no prayer by any man offered to God, but there will be some human frailties attending on it; if therefore for this cause we should reject communion in prayer, we should reject the ordinances of God, and never join in any prayer in this world; but the corruptions of the Liturgy are not such, but that they may be more easily cast off, then kept.

This case stands not in tolerating faults in another (as the reply makes it) but in actual joining with the sins of another, wherein he that joineth is involved, and therefore whether they be corruptions, that may be tolerated or not in another, yet if sins, they may not be practiced and so joined in with another. And therefore the case you put of communion with any person obstinate in error, till he may be convinced, is nothing to this purpose. For we must not join with him in his error, no not an hour, though we may tolerate him a month.

Reply.

Hath not Christian wisdom and experience of human frailties lessoned you (dear brethren) to bear one with another in matters of greater consequence, then any have, or can be objected truly against the form of prayer in use among us?

Answ.

The Lord hath lessoned us to tolerate and bear with many human frailties not only in one another, but also in our dear brethren abroad; but to join with the best of men in conformity to known and gross corruptions in worshipping God, or to stoop so low, to the insolent tyranny of usurping Prelates, as to bear on our backs their whole Liturgy, and the corruptions thereof, we confess we have not yet learned, and now we hope never to go to that school again to learn the same.

Reply.

And why such corruptions should not be ascribed to human frailty, we see not. For if a godly Minister make use of a book, in things which he judges lawful for matter and manner, the corruption of him that useth it, according to his judgment, from what cause can it spring but human ignorance and frailty?

Answ.

First, the learned replier is very apt to forget the terms of the Proposition, which is of the whole Liturgy, not of some things in it, that he may judge lawful, to judge the whole lawful, we think none of those who sent the questions do.

Secondly, our question is not whether the Minister use the book of human frailty, but whether the worship offered therein, be not so corrupt for matter and manner, as puts a great difference between it, and the prayers of a Minister that may be subject to failings of human frailty. We doubt not, but Bilney, Latimer, &c. used the prayers and ceremonies of the Church of Rome, out of human frailty, yet the service it self and those ceremonies of holy water, holy bread, &c. which Latimer turned to as good use, as he could, were evil and no way to be conformed unto by the godly.

Thirdly, there are many things done of others through human frailty, that is, ignorantly and in some measure perversely, yet such frailties, though they are to be very long tolerated in the man, yet every human frailty is not so to be tolerated, as to be communicated with; for the grossest Idolatry in Popery may in this sense, if ignorantly done, be accounted human frailty. It is true, we may be freed from communicating in another's sin two ways. 1. By bearing witness against his sin, or 2ly by withdrawing from the person committing it. There were times wherein the Lord raised up witnesses against the growing abominations of Antichrist for many years; and there are times (as Cameron well observes) wherein the Lord commands his people not only to bear witness, but to come out of Babylon. The case may be so put as that we may quit our hands from communicating with other men, in their sinful worship, by bearing witness only against the sin, yet communicating with them in the rest; & e contra the circumstances may be such, as that we best free ourselves from sin, by withdrawing from them in such acts. And we freely confess we know not how to acquit others that communicate in the whole Liturgy, without the one or the other.

Reply.

We rest assured you question not the integrity of many, who make much more use of the book, then only in a few select prayers.

Answ.

You may so do, and we rest assured you question not the integrity of many that have conformed to the ceremonies, yet we hope you will not justify them in that act, no more then we do any in this.

Reply.

From the bottom of our hearts, we pray that the Lord would remove out of his Church what ever offends, and yet all things might be so done, as might be approved in the consciences of all.

Answ.

We not only join with you in this hearty desire, but bless God that we live to see the same so far accomplished in a good part of England, as it is; but as we are persuaded the growing light and zeal of many godly Ministers and Christians, that have discovered the evil of the book it self, as well as the ceremonies thereof, and their resolute rejection of the same, was one blessed means hereof, so we fear the pleas and endeavors of some brethren to excuse it and the use of it, will be a dangerous means to uphold in the hearts of many too good an opinion of it, and loathsomeness to cast it quite away to the Moles and Bats, from whence it first came.

Reply.

To aggravate faults, especially when it tends to draw away people from the ordinances of God, is no less evil then to excuse them, it m • y be greater.

Answ.

We grant at sometimes and in some cases it may be so, but in matters of corrupt worship, wherein God is so jealous and at such a time as this was; when the burthensome corruptions of human traditions so violently imposed on the Churches, grew to such a number and unsupportable weight to the consciences of so many, we doubt not to affirm, that now extenuations were far more dangerous and offensive to the Lord: we cannot but with sad hearts con • ider and call to mind how many weak Christians have ventured to swallow down all manner of human traditions and worships imposed upon them, emboldened much (we fear) by the examples, if not the reasonings of many godly Ministers, which scandal some of us with many amongst you have have cause to bewail before the Lord and give satisfaction before the world; And we hope our departure from these burdens, and flight into these wildernesses to enjoy Christ in more pure ordinances of his worship, and the witness we have thereby borne against them, have not been in vain through the grace of Jesus Christ.

Reply.

In them that join according to Christ's command (and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shown) notwithstanding the corruptions, we hold the prayers to be an holy and acceptable sacrifice to the Lord, and pleasing to Jesus Christ.

Answ.

How any man can join with this whole Liturgy according to Christ's command, who in the second commandment forbids all human devices in his worship, whereof this Liturgy is so full; it is hard for us to conceive, and strange to see it affirmed: and that Liberty from Christ to be absent cannot be shown. The whole sentence as it standeth, we confess to us seems an high justification thereof, which we little expected.

Reply.

The corrupt sacrifice is that which the deceiver bringeth voluntarily, and our of neglect, having a male in his flock, but the godly bringeth himself and godly desires according to the will of God, and the corruptions in matter or manner are not his, they cleave not to his sacrifice to stain and pollute it. The Text in Malachi. 1. is misapplied, and we desire such as allege this passage against simple presence at the prayers of the Liturgy, advisedly to consider whether God allow them to make such application of his truth, which we much doubt of, to say no more▪

Answ.

That people joining in the whole Liturgy, voluntarily offer up the same, we thought had been no question: If any join by fear and compulsion (though the will in this case is not forced, for mixta actio is voluntaria ) [we think that will not ease, but aggravate the evil, arguing a reluctancy or doubtfulness at least in his conscience, and so what he doth is not of faith, and therefore sin, Rom. 14.] 2ly. What you say of the faithful here, might be said for the faithful in Malachi his time, if any godly man came with godly desires to Jerusalem to worship, and then carelessly buy and take a corrupt sacrifice for cheapness, ease, &c. shall he not be counted (at least in part) this deceiver, and bear the curse? And why not so here in this case? Let a man bring himself, and never so godly desires, yet if he will join in a known corrupt service, will his godly desires excuse him? shall not his broken absurd responds, his standing at the Creed, kneeling at the Sacrament, &c. all which he must do, if he join in the whole Liturgy, shall none of these cleave to his sacrifice? what though the Minister offer the service? so did the Priest the sacrifice; But both in the name of the people, and they joining with him in offering the same to God. 3ly. Concerning Malachi. 1. 13, 14. the more advisedly we consider it, the more persuaded we are, the Lord allow us to make such application of the truth contained in it, and we think others will be of our mind, not only in respect of the similitude that is in this case, with that in Malachi, but also if we consider, what an argument the Lord useth to convince them of their corruptions and carelessness in his service, Verse 11. wherein the Lord upbraids the Jews and provokes them to Jealousy, as the Apostle Paul speaks, by declaring the reverend esteem of his name amongst the heathen, and that everywhere Incense should be offered and a pure offering to his name. And what is that Incense, and pure offering, but the pure prayers, and worship of God that should be in all Gentile Churches under the Gospel? as Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome and Austin with others expound it. And he applies it again, Verse 14. I am a great King, and my name shall be great amongst the heathen: If then the Lord oppose the pure prayers and worship of Gentile Churches to the corrupt careless sacrifices of the Jews, the application is not only suitable, but the place contains a sad admonition to all Gentile Churches, that by their corrupt worships, and Incense, so far frustrate (as it were) God's expectation and glorying of their pure oblations.

Reply.

Your third Proposition. That as you are very tender of imputing sin to those men that join in some select prayers read by an able and godly Minister, so on the other side, you are not without fear, l • st such joining may be found unlawful, unless it may appear, that the Ministers with whom they have communion, neither give scandal by reading them, nor give unlawful honor to a thing abused to Idolatry and Superstition, nor do suffer themselves to be sinfully limited in the reading of them.

1 We cannot conceive how you should imagine the practice of a godly Minister in reading some few select prayers to be scandalous, or offensive in the Congregations, when the people generally in their assemblies and in the whole land were persuaded of the lawfulness of that course, till now of late times some have been drawn away to separate; who yet by warrant of Scripture produce nothing of weight, to countenance that practice.

Answ.

Concerning this Proposition, we do ingenuously confess, that it may seem over rigid and tending to separation, and therefore we will not wholly justify the same: yet diverse things there be, which may much mitigate the seeming rigidness of it.

1 In the words of the answer, where we do not determine anything positively, we do not impute sin to any in such a case, we say only that we are not without fear, lest it may be found unlawful, where any scandal, unlawful honor, or sinful limiting be found in the Ministers: and if our fears be needless, we hope, such as know how jealous the Lord is in matters of his worship will easily forgive us.

2 Because you marvel we should be so timorous in this case, we shall give you some reasons of it, which perhaps may abate much the marvel or wonder.

First, let it be remembered that these select prayers are yet a part of that Liturgy, which is acknowledged to be corrupt in matter and manner and clogged with such evil consequences as are afore touched; Taken out of the Mass-book, &c. And Master Parker (who was no separatist) doubts not to affirm, that the touching of Antichrists things maketh unclean, for which he cites, 2 Cor. 6. 17. Haggai 2. 14. John 4. 23. Park. of the Cross, part 1. pag. 137.

Secondly, let it be considered that this book is imposed by an unlawful Antichristian authority of the Prelates, to whom to give place and subjection in anything is justly to be questioned. And we know that a man may acknowledge his fealty and hold his Lands of the Lord of the Manner by a small rent, as well as by a greater.

Thirdly, con • ider this corrupt Service-book hath been overlong tolerated and borne withal in the English Churches: it deserveth not so honorable a burial as the Jewish worship: but hath stunke above ground twice 40. years, in the nostrils of many godly, who breathed in the pure air of the holy Scripture, being witnessed against by the writings and sufferings of many godly Ministers and Christians in England and Scotland.

Fourthly, many godly men (it is well known) have been (of late times especially) offended at many good Ministers silence in these things, that they would no more plainly and boldly discover the corruptions in that book, and at their compliance with the same.

Fifthly, these are times of more light, whereby the Lord is consuming Antichrist, with the breath of his mouth. And therefore we have cause the more to fear how we meddle with anything of his.

Sixthly, consider the season when this answer was sent, was it not at a time, when superstitious opinions of the whole book and the ceremonies thereof, were grown to a great height in the minds and hearts of very many? when divers superstitious Popish worships, as bowing at the name of Jesus, reading at the Table set Altar-wise, &c. were added to the heap of former corruptions? when the tyranny of the Prelates raged in the pressing of the book, and their other human inventions? when many Ministers and people (well thought of by the best) were carried away shamefully with these things? when many weak Christians were staggering and wavering and looking at the judgment and practice of their guides, ready to stand or fall with them?

Lastly, consider that things lawful in themselves may be inexpedient; because offensive in their use, and so far unlawful; which offense we chiefly looked at in this act, as appears by our answer.

Let all these things be laid together and weighed in an equal balance (which we hope our brethren are now at some liberty and leisure to do) and let the consciences of all speak, whether it was not high time, for all the godly in England to take unto them that zeal and courage, which was soon after in our Brethren of Scotland, to cast off and wholly abandon the book itself and all the forms of it, and use of the same in every part and piece thereof? At least we hope you will cease to marvel at our timerousnesse of such a season, how ever we confess, we have sometime been more bold in the dark.

These considerations premised, as they may in a great measure abate the seeming rigor of the proposition: so they will much take off the edge of the Reply. For it will appear that all conformity of Ministers and people to any parcels of that book, at such a season as this was, is a far differing case from those that are put in some of the replies.

1 To the first reply then, wherein you put it beyond imagination, that such a practice should be scandalous or offensive, we know not what you have observed in some particular congregations near you: but what ever have been the opinions of men formerly concerning this practice, yet you know that the book in general hath been condemned of all godly reformers, and the use of any part of it hath been counted burdensome to many for the reasons named. But of later times, as the book and conformity thereto was urged more hotly, so the spirits of very many grew more zealous against it, and began to loath it, and to withdraw wholly from it; many very inquisitive about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of joining with it at all, and yourselves complain of the withdrawing of many, from joining in the ordinances, where it was used, so that we see not, but at least in some persons and at some places and times it might probably be offensive and scandalous so to practice.

2 We looked not only to the offense of those in your own congregations, but to the imboldning and hardening of Papists in honoring any part of their portuises, above the forms of other reformed Churches abroad; and you cannot be ignorant how many of the Lord's witnesses now asleep have testified of the offense and danger thereof.

Reply.

2 You say if the book were an Idolothyte, yet latent offense doth not oblige.

Answ.

The offense in this season, and as all things stand, cannot be latent, complaint is made of the offense taken by many, and therefore it is evident.

Reply.

3 The book so far as it is sound and good (by your confession) is no Idolothyte, nor taken out of the Mass book, in such sense as you object: but rather the Mass and other prayers added to it; Popery is a sca • ▪ leaving to the Church, and many truths belonging to the Church, as her proper Legacy, were stolen, and heaped together in that Den; And why the true man may not challenge his goods where ever he find them, or the thief plead title to the true man's goods by prescription we know not.

Answ.

First, we judge the whole book an Idolothyte, and whence you gather, that we confess the contrary of any part of it, as it stands apart in relation to that whole, we know not.

Secondly, that it was taken out of the Mass book, was proved by the confession of King Edward; and other evidences are many; but you say, not in such sense as we object. But rather, • contra Mass, &c. added to it, &c. But where to find such a legacy bequeathed to the Church in the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, we could never yet see: So that we rather fear all those forms of prayer, of marriage, burials, visitations of the sick, confirmation, &c. are rather the copper counterfeit coin, of a well grown Antichrist, whereby he cozened the Churches, when he stole away the golden Legacy of Christ, rather then any part of the true Churches Legacy: and therefore it had been more happy for the Churches that they had never challenged the same, but let the thief’s prescription to have been a good plea to hold them still: this further we add, when we say it was taken out of the Mass-book, we understand Mass-book in a large sense, (as it is commonly taken) for to speak narrowly it was collected out of three Popish books, the first part of public Prayers, exbreviario; the second part, viz. the order of administering Sacraments, Matrimony, visiting the sick and burials, e Rituali; 3. the order of consecration in the Supper, the Epistles and Gospels, and Collects, e Missali, as the form of consecration of Bishops and Priests was taken e Pontificali, as the Author of Altare Damase. shows, pag. 612.

Thirdly, because those words, Popery is a scab, &c. may be a seed of much evil, an Egg out of which a Serpent may be hatched, if men zealous of mouldy forms may but have time again to set upon it, if the wheel of these evil times, (through God's judgment on this wantonage) turn the Prelates or other zelotes for this Liturgy uppermost, we shall therefore crave liberty to examine this speech more narrowly. And because (as it is said) unumquodque ex suâ origin rectissime judicatur, we shall grace the steps of the first times and so downward, to see what sound parts of Liturgy there was, on which this scab is supposed to grow.

1. Our blessed Savior taught his Disciples a blessed form, which though it may be lawfully and comfortably used, the rather, not being of man's, but the Lord's composing: yet it is evident he never appointed his people to use it as their only form, and therefore the Apostles in the primitive Church, in that heavenly prayer, Acts 4. did not attend to the words and form of this prayer, though they might have this in their eye, as the common rule and direction how to pour out their prayers to God, for particular things, which may be an everlasting witness against their usurpations, that will limit the Churches to their forms which the Lord Christ would not do to his own.

2. In the first 300. years after Christ, we read of few forms, that the Churches used, and those rather short ejaculations, then set forms, but contrarily we read frequently of the exercise of their gifts in prayer. They prayed sine monitore, quia de pectore, saith Tertullian, i. e. They prayed without a Promptour, because from the heart, which as Zephirus observes was in opposition to the prompted forms then in use amongst the Pagans. We read also what they prayed for, viz. pro inimicis, pro imperatoribus, pro statu seculi, pro morâ finis, &c. but of any set forms we read not. Their persecutions and days of afflictions preserved them from formality in prayer, and taught them how to find their hearts and knees, and tongues, to pour out their souls to God, while under the Altar they were pouring out their blood.

3. But after the Churches had enjoyed peace for some space of time, (wherein security usually makes insensible, and insenssblenesse formal) then indeed we read ofset and imposed forms, which the rather prevailed in regard of the gross and palpable ignorance of a blind ministry, under a more learned Prelacy, and therefore it is well observed by Chemnitz that the third Council of Carthage decreed this; ut nemo in precibus, &c. viz. that no Minister in his prayers either names the Father for the Son or the Son for the Father, but when he comes to the Altar, to direct his prayers always to God the Father, and that no man use his own forms, till he have conferred and shown his forms to men more able, which we find sometime to be the Synod.

4 After these times they added the commemoration of Saints to their Prayers and Litanies, as appears from manifold instances, whereof take but this one imputed to Chrysostom: Sanctissimae Deiparae & semper Virginis Mariae, cum omnibus sanctis, memoriam agents, nos ipsos & omnem vitam nostram Christo Deo nostro commendamus. Which Litanies at first being used more seldom at sometimes of the year, afterwards grew into ordinary use, to every end of which the people added, Lord have mercy upon us, and Exaudi Domine, We beseech thee to hear us good Lord.

5 From commemoration of Saints, (being so near the brink) they soon came on to invocation of them, first in private prayers, then in public, and that by degrees. For first, they called upon Christ to hear their intercessions for them. Intercessionibus Sanctorum t • orum, Salvator, salva nos: and thence they fell to direct and immediate invocation of them. Maria Deo supplica, ut animas nostras salvet.

6 At last they became so superstitious in their Litanies or Liturgies, that praying was magnified above all preaching, and almost all preaching was changed into formal, corrupt, and blind praying; and thus it was generally in the Churches, till about the sixth Century, as (if need were) might be shown at large.

7 Though other Churches were thus over-grown with Forms of Worship, yet the Roman Bishops especially, did multiply Forms and superstitious Rites excessively. Rome being (in God's secret Providence) left to become the very seat and throne of Antichrist. The Bishops themselves also finding it exceeding hard to bring in the Religion of Christ, without conforming to the Pagan rites, as Casaubon observes. For it appears even in the time of Theodosius, wherein Christianity was risen to a great head, the Senate being sent unto by him to renounce their Pagan Religion, and receive the law of Christ, they returned answer that they would not, but that they would observe the ancient law Pompilian, to avoid the ruin of the Common-wealth, which they feared might come by the change of Religion. The Roman Bishops also for 400 years together, could never obtain of the Senate, nor multitudes of the Roman Idolaters, to renounce their inveterate Idolatry, and receive the Gospel. Hence they conformed their Rites and Ceremonies to the Pagan and Idolatrous customs, the better to allure them to Christ according to their carnalll policy. We find all the principal parts of the Mass to be borrowed from the Idolatrous Pagans, and to have their original from Numa Pompilius that Conjurer, who lived 700 years before Christ, to adorn and deck (as the Bishops thought) the Religion of Christ Jesus, to the which with much ado at last the Romans were converted. To which principal parts, viz. Vestments, Holy-water, the Con • iteo • , Organs, Incense, Offertory, &c. other deckings were added also, as divers Litanies, and the Kurie Elyson to be sung nine times, invented by Gregory a Monk at first, well studied in the laws of Num • and Tullus Hostilius: Damasus (as Platina and Sabellius show) enriched it with Gloria Patri, &c. i. e. Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Sergius, with an Agnus Dei, to be sung three times. Alexander and other Bishops added the Canon of the Mass; others, the Epistles and Gospels: The Graduall and Collects were added by Gelasius, anno 493. The Gloria in excelsis by Symmachus 508. At last came the Host in about 1062. Much more might be said. All which when we consider, we confess we are pus • ed to discern the difference between the sound part and the scab. For if the principal formalities of the Mass (out of which our Liturgy was taken; as is confessed) arose out of a politick push to conform the Christian to the Pagan Religion, and the deckings of it, from the itching humor of the Roman busy Bishops, admirers of human inventions and Ceremonies; let the Reader then judge what sound parts are left beside the scab. We do not speak this to condemn everything for the matter▪ of it that is in the Common-Prayer-book: Yea, we honor the affection and piety of the first Reformers, and the godly then, that were glad to hear Prayers in their own tongue, and according to the glimmering light of those times, aimed at the winning of Papists to the true Religion by such a Form of Worship. But now since experience hath taught, it rather hardens them against the truth, then draws them toward it; when we see the pressing of it is rather a temptation to conform to Popery, then otherwise; we verily believe, if they had lived in these times of further light, they would have born witness against it, as others have done.

Lastly, though the original had been good (which yet is contrary) we may answer in the words of Peter Martyr, to such as did plead for a lawful presence at Mass, because the original was good; who answers thus: In • isce re • us non • rigo, &c. In these matters, not the Original, but the Nature is to be considered; for the brazen Serpent had its original from God, and was honored with miraculous works: yet when abused, Piis hominibus redditus est detestabilis, it became (most) loathsome to godly men.

Reply.

It is no hard ta • k to show, that our Service-book was reformed in most things, according to the purest Liturgies which were in use in the Church, long before the Mass was heard of in the world. And if that could not be shown, yet forms of speech generally taken (we speak not of this or that special word or phrase) is no more defiled by Idolatry, then the light, air, or place where Idolatry is committed, &c.

Answ.

It is just cause of grief unto us, that this reverend Author should thus use the Prelates plea for Surplice and other Ceremonies, to justify this corrupt Liturgy; for these were before the Mass, and many other Idols of the Papists: and though a phrase o • word be not polluted by their use of it; yet a needless Ceremony, and so a devised Form of Worship, and a bundle of Ceremonious and corrupt Worships, must needs be polluted by the use of them; better to use the Forms of Turks then Papists, saith Cartw. supra.

Reply.

Fourthly, put case the Minister in reading give offense, give unlawful honor to a thing abused to Idolatry, and suffer himself to be sinfully limited in reading? what is that to the faithful? This can be no ground that the people may not join, &c.

Answ.

We do not conclude that they do sin, but fearful we are lest they may so do; all things considered in this case, as have been before propounded. If indeed the case stood as formerly it hath done in England, we would have been less scrupulous and doubtful of the matter: but if by the out-breaking of light, after so long toleration of the book, we see so many evil effects of it, and see such superstitious opinions of it increasing, and such pressing the same to the oppression of the Churches, so many fall, so many weak ones stagger, and look at the example of their Guides: if now when all are called of God to rise up against it with zeal and detestation, a Minister godly and able will use any part of it with offense, &c. we suppose we had cause to fear and leave it doubtful, whether the godly might lawfully join with them therein, and therefore we desire you to call back your sharp censure of such withdrawing, as you conclude this passage withal, or else we shall appeal to the reverend Assembly of Ministers, and their late and godly Directory herein.

Reply.

Fifthly, If these, and such like scruples make it unlawful to join in the ordinance of Worship, we must hold communion with no society under heaven. For may not the brethren which hold all stinted Liturgies and set Forms unlawful, say with like reason, it is not lawful to join with others in conceived Prayers, if they give too little honor to it, as conceiving the other lawful, or sinfully limiting themselves to one stinted Form, though conceived at first by themselves, &c.

Answ.

We must in treat the Christian Reader still to carry in mind with what tenderness we offered ourselves in this point, and upon what considerations we durst not wholly excuse and clear such joining as the case now stood, and therefore we think these reasonings would be far differing from the case in hand, and we would not be taken so as to justify such rigid principles as these are. We heartily join in the conclusion, that such advancing of small differences, would indeed bring all to confusion, and we are far (we hope) from any such meaning. If our answer in this or any other passage, give just advantage to such separations, we are heartily sorry for it; but we hope what hath been said will satisfy the ingenuous and Christian Reader.

Reply.

Sixthly, we have credibly heard, that you hold fellowship with professed rigid separatists, without acknowledging of their error, and receive them as members, or communicate with them in the privileges of the Church, though you profess you approve not their opinion or practice: and if in godly wisdom you can see grounds to join with them, we marvel you should be so timorous in this particular.

Answ.

Although in many of our Churches we know not that there be any such professed rigid Separatists, that reject the Churches of England, as no Churches; and their Ministers, as no true Ministers; yet we deny not but some such there may be in some of the Churches. Whence we grant it may follow that we can have communion in God's Worship with men of several judgments, yet we may be justly timorous of joining or approving others to join in any part of a corrupt Worship, in case of scandal, &c. we think these things have not the same face or show of reason in them; and therefore so long as they live peaceably with us, we can well have fellowship with them, as we have also with other, that think (it may be) better of the Churches and ways of it, then there is cause, in regard of the corruptions thereof; so we be not bound to approve their opinions, nor conform to any of their corrupt practices.

Reply.

Seventhly, if to administer in a stinted Form be scandalous to such as separate, it is scandal taken, not given; and we should do it the rather, that they be not confirmed in their error, the truth be not prejudiced, needless scruples occasioned, &c.

Answ.

1 This is from the question, for we dispute of your Liturgy, not of any Liturgy or stinted Form.

2 Take in the case in all its circumstances, (as before declared) and it will appear scandal may be given; at least we put the case of a scandal really given.

3 How far a man in some cases of clear and undoubted truths may do a thing, the rather for such reasons, though others take offense, we will not dispute: but if for meat (or by use of our liberty by eating of such meat, as another accounts unclean) we may destroy the work of God, and therefore must not eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby a brother stumble, &c. Rom. 14 14, 15, 20, 21. how dangerous then to use such corrupt Forms of Worship, or any part thereof, so much the rather, when a weak brother stumbles at them, we leave it to the Christian Reader to judge, we doubt it will not agree with the rules of charity prescribed Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8.

CHAP. III.

Reply.

WHat is here premised to prevent mistakes, doth seem more to raise, then to abate scruples. You refuse not all communion with all that are not Church-members, and so much they profess who formerly have gone for, and professed themselves Separatists from our assemblies; you do not appropriate these privileges of the seals only to members of your own Churches, &c. If you mean only that the Sacraments administered in other Churches be true for substance; it is no more then you will confess of Rome. If you deny not fellowship with them in the seals, and to receive them to the Sacrament, your judgment is against your practice, or you exclude the Churches of England from the number of true Churches.

Answ.

We see not how such scruples could be raised without great mistake of our meaning, our expressions were so plain and distinct. For,

1 What if some Separatists admit private communion with such, yet they reject your Churches and Ministry as null, which we do not. And many of them have refused also such private communion.

2 We marvel how you could fall into such a mistake, as to suppose we only allow the truth of Sacraments for substance in other Churches, when we speak in the same sentence of receiving satisfaction by Letters, or otherwise concerning those we admit to the seals; which plainly show we speak of communion with such Churches.

3 Concerning fellowship with those Churches, we may admit members of them to the seals with us, when we cannot always join with them in their administrations, by reason of some sinful corruptions, wherein we must have actual fellowship with them; as yourselves would not join, in case you must kneel at the Lord's-supper.

4 Concerning the Dilemma. We answer; 1 Our practice is not cross to this profession. For such as come recommended from foreign Churches, and give such satisfaction as is meet, we do receive; and such as have wholly cast off all relation to English Churches, and live amongst us, we have looked at as scattered stones, till they join some where in a Church; and themselves generally so judge of themselves; but if any will hold to their membership in England, and come orderly to communion with us, we have not, no • shall not under that notion refuse them, if they be fit for the ordinances; and therefore we exclude not the English Churches out of the number, and herein we deal no otherwise with them, then with the members of our own Churches.

Reply.

All possible care to keep the ordinances of God from contempt, we allow and commend, so you deny not Church privileges, to whom they are due, nor the name of Churches to such as God hath blessed with means of grace, and have r • ceived the Tables and Seals, and entered Covenant with God. Your liberty to receive such satisfaction as is meet, is not questioned, nor whether you are to keep the bond of the spirit inviolable according to order: but whether this be according to▪ order, to exclude from the Sacrament true visible Christians, or known recommended Christians, formerly members of visible Churches amongst us, and their children; and to put such difference between them, and such as are in your Church order.

Answ.

1 If the learned Author would hold to what here is granted, we hope this controversy would soon be at an issue; but it will appear after this order allowed binds only in case of the Ministers to dispense Sacraments, but Christians are left at a loose end, in respect of combining themselves unto particular Churches according to the order of Christ, which is the thing we plead for.

2 We have not denied the name of Churches to such as are said to have plentifully the means of grace, Tables, Seals, and Covenant.

3 Concerning the stating of the question, too much liberty is taken, as in other cases; for neither in the Position, or in our Answer, do we limit the question to members in our Church order, (as here it is called) but expressly extend the same to other Churches of Christ, though through error or human frailty, defective in matters of order, yea, to the members of any true Church, as in the Answer is said. 2. Concerning such as come over, and are for a time without Seals, it is not because we refuse communion with them, as being members of your Churches known, or recommended Christians, as you say. For if any godly man remaining a member in any true Church with you, or elsewhere, come so recommended, or be well known to the Church, we never under that notion refuse any, but giving such other satisfaction as is meet, shall readily receive them, as we always profess, and therefore we must still call for attendance to the state of this question in its right terms, viz. whether the children of godly parents, or themselves though of approved piety, are to be admitted to the seals, not being members of some particular Congregation, or until they be such.

CHAP. IV.

Reply.

TO the first consideration: If by the Church be understood the society of men professing the entire faith, the seals are given to it, as peculiar privileges, but if you understand a Congregational assembly, the seals were never appropriated to it.

Answ.

1 Our meaning is plain in the second sense, as may appear by the reasons alleged against any such universal Church, as instituted and political, wherein the seals are dispensed, which reasons you answer not, but grant there is no such Catholic Church in our sense, pag. 21. And if no such Church wherein the seals are administered, as we proved, then the cause itself is yielded, and the seals must belong to particular Churches.

2. Seeing the main hinge of this question turns upon this point, to what Church the administration and participation of the seals belong, we shall a little further open ourselves in this point. And because we affect and study peace with truth; we shall freely acknowledge,

First, that as there is an invisible Church and Body of Christ, consisting of all the elect, effectually called throughout the world in all ages of it, the whole family in heaven and earth: so unto Jesus Christ, all the visible believers and Churches of the world, are as one body to him, he governing, protecting, instructing all as his visible body.

Secondly, we acknowledge a visible communion of all the true Churches of the Lord Jesus, in all offices of brotherly love, and in the holy things of Christ, so far as may appear, the Lord have ordained and commanded, and by his Providence called them to exercise one with another.

Thirdly, we grant that all true believers, where-ever they be, have by faith in Christ, a true right and interest unto Jesus Christ and all his benefits, whatsoever he hath purchased for them; but here we must first distinguish of these benefits of Christ, whereof some are merely spiritual, inward, and flowing immediately from Christ unto them; and therefore peculiar to true believers, as justification, sanctification, adoption, access to God in prayer, &c. some are outward and tending to the help and furtherance of our spiritual communion with Christ, being outward and visible means thereof; and therefore are also extended to hypocrites being visible believers, as the Ministry of the Word, Seals, Church-discipline, &c. And these cannot be dispensed by Christ immediately nor ordinarily, but by means of a visible Church. 2. We distinguish of right to these outward benefits of Christ; which is either remote, called, jus ad rem; or near, and immediate, called, jus in r • ; right to the enjoyment and fruition of it. Now in the first sense we grant, all visible believers have a right to seals, &c. But the immediate fruition of them, they must have mediante Ecclesiâ visibili: now here lies the true state of the question, Whether the Lord Jesus have ordained an universal visible Church, in which, and unto which, by the Officers thereof all these outward visible privileges and means of Grace, are to be dispensed and immediately enjoyed of the faithful; or whether (not the remote right, but) the immediate fruition and administration of all these ordinances by the institution of Christ, be given to particular visible Churches; and surely to whom one of these is given, all are given: For there is the same nature, reason, and use of all, Ministry of the Word, Seals, Discipline, all are outward ordinances, privileges, means of Grace, belonging to the visible Church, where Christ hath given one, he hath given all. But we must confess, however you call this, A new Church way, it is new to us to read so much of late, of such a Catholic Church, to which administration of Seals, Censures, &c. belong. We are yet of the opinion of Baynes, Parker, and Cartwright, &c. that have against Papists and Prelates maintained, that in the New Testament there is no instituted Catholic, National, or Provincial Church; but only the Church of a particular Congregation, both for the reasons alleged in our Answer, as also for the impossibility thereof in the days of the New Testament, when the Lord Jesus sent his Apostles into all the world; therefore impossible both in regard of distance of place, and variety of language almost ever to meet in one, so much as by representation, and that not only by accident, as may befall a particular Church, by sickness, persecution, &c. but by the necessity of nature and invincible hindrances foreseen by Christ, and intended by him. And therefore, as the Lord limiting his Church to one Nation, united it into that form of a National Church, ordaining one place, stated times and duties of Worship, and one Government for the same: so now the Lord neglecting all such things, hath ordained a complete administration of all his ordinances in particular Congregations, and therefore if there be no other instituted visible Church but of a Congregation, and Seals in their administration be given to the Church, our first consideration will still hold firm. But seeing in so vast a subject to say little, is to say nothing; and there is scarce any Truth in this wily age but is almost disputed out of countenance, and much darkened with human evasions; and seeing much depends upon this controversy, it may be so most useful before we come to the defense of our argument to take into consideration the nature and order of the visible Church of Christ Catholic and particular. We are not ignorant of the knots and difficulties of this question, which of late have so much exercised the minds of many Godly-learned: And we think the notions of a Catholic Church, as it is now held, being but newly taken up amongst godly Reformers, who formerly ran in another channel, (as is ingenuously confessed by some according to the truth) this new-birth seems not yet so formed to its distinct proportions, as time may bring it unto: and it might make us afraid (being the weakest of many) to venture upon so diffuse and knotty a question, when we look upon our own insufficiency to such a task, and the Learned labors of such in this Point, whom we reverence in the Lord: yet, when we consider of what great weight and moment the clearing up of this Truth would be unto the orderly proceedings of the great Work of Reformation in hand; 2 How unavoidably it lies in our way in this Work the Lord hath called us unto; and that he sometimes doth vouchsafe to speak by weak ones, that the praise may be his own, in hope of his blessed guidance which we depend upon herein, taking the light of his Word in our hands, we shall (rather as learners then otherwise) venture to propound what is suggested to us herein. Concerning which having digressed a while, we shall return (we hope) with some advantage of clearer evidence to justify the first argument of the Answer, against what is said in the Reply.

CHAP. V.

THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word [Church:] and therefore (as it is needful) we shall labor to set down our thoughts as distinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propositions that may be some ground of our discourse.

Propos. 1.

The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ their Head, with whom they make up one mystical body, Ephes. 1. 23. This whole Church is of the same nature, and one in essence from the beginning of the world to the end; for this Church Christ laid down his life, Ephes. 5. 26. Joh. 10. 15. and therefore he adds, verse. 16. such as are not yet of his fold (actually) shall be brought into the same, viz. by effectual calling, that there may be one Shepherd and one sheepfold: whereby it appears that the whole fold of Christ to which he stands as one Shepherd, contains all his members and sheep to the end of the world, and it is one fold in relation to Christ that one Shepherd.

Propos. 2 •

This one entire body of Christ doth naturally fall under various notions and considerations, as (omitting others) when it is considered according to the adjuncts of visibility and invisibility, which are only adjuncts of the same Church, as is generally observed by Divines. In respect of the inward union which every such member hath with Christ the Head, by the Spirit of Christ, and by Faith, whereby we are united to him; it is called invisible, because this union is not visible to men. In respects of some visible fruits and manifestations of faith to the judgment of men, it is called visible; and hence though true believers be only univoce, and properly members of this body of Christ; yet to men that judge only by outward effects many hypocrites, equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church; and hence the Scripture frequently speaks of visible Churches, as if they were all really Saints.

Propos. 3.

As this Church comes to be visible, so it becomes a fit and capable subject of visible policy, and visible communion with Christ their Head, and one with another in all the visible ordinances of Christ, a capable subject we say, or matter fit for such a state; for by its visibility itself it is not so, having yet no more then a spiritual relation to Christ and one another: no visible combination one with another; for visible believers may be so scattered in several Countries, that they cannot make up one Society.

Propos. 4.

And therefore we add, That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actual visible communion under the visible government of Christ, and in the visible instituted ordinances of Christ, but in a Society. A thousand uncombined persons meeting occasionally in one place, though their natural relations were as near as brethren, yet have no power of government or actual communion in any Civil privileges, if they stand not in relation to one another as a combined Society; as after shall be shown; so here: And therefore, Acts 2. 41, 42. first they were added to the Church, and then followed their fellowship in all the ordinances of the Church; as after will more fully appear. And hence it is said, Acts 5. 14. Believers were added; first they were believers, standing in that spiritual relation to Christ and his whole body, and then added to the Church by visible combination.

Propos. 5.

There is no visible society of a Church who hath actual and immediate right unto, and communion in the visible government of Christ, and the dispensation of his instituted Worship and ordinances, but such a Society as the Lord Jesus hath in the Gopel instituted and ordained for that end. We say actual and immediate right unto the same; for though a believer, quâ believer, have an immediate right, and actual enjoyment of such benefits of Christ as necessarily and immediately flow from his internal union with Christ, as justification, adoption, &c. and such right to Christian communion with all the Saints in their prayers, gifts, &c. as flow from his spiritual relation unto them; yea, and also he hath a true right to all benefits purchased by Christ in a due order and manner: yet we say instituted privileges and ordinances do not immediately flow from spiritual union and relation to Christ and his members, but are dispensed by Christ to his people mediately, and in such an order as he hath in wisdom ordained: and this the nature of visible government and ordinances of Christ necessarily requires. And hence it is, that although the Church in its nature and essence, and in respect of its spiritual union and relation to Christ and one another, profession of the same faith, &c. have been always one and the same in all ages, yet both the visible government and ordinances of Worship, and also the instituted form and order of Church-societies hath been various according to the wisdom and will of Christ, whereby it appears, that the order, government, forms of visible Church-societies, to which actual enjoyment of visible ordinances do belong, cannot justly be deduced from the common nature of the Church Catholic, or any respects of reason or logical notions under which it may fall: but only this depends upon the will and pleasure of Christ, who hath in all ages instituted the forms and orders of such Societies to whom the actual enjoyment of instituted ordinances was given: And hence the argument for a national form of a Church to be in the New Testament as well as in the Old, drawn from the common nature, essence, profession of faith, &c. of the Church in all ages, falls flat to the ground, for by the same reason it must then be in families only now, as it was about Abraham's time.

Propos. 6.

Hence it follows that the true state of this great dispute about a Catholic Church (so far as tends to clear up to what Church the actual administration of Church-government, and all instituted Worship belongs) doth not lie in the consideration of the common nature, essence, unity, visibility, or any other notions under which it may fall; but the true state lies here concerning the nature, order, form of such visible Societies, as Christ Jesus by Divine institution in the Gospel hath reduced his visible members unto, for the actual and immediate enjoyment of all his instituted ordinances.

And therefore (with due respect to the Godly-learned be it spoken) we conceive many large disputes in this question fall short of the issue that is desired and intended; for what if it be granted: 1 That there is a Catholic visible Church, which in some respects of reason (as Mr. Ball saith) is one that having partes visibiles, is a totum visible.

2. That the visible Church is not only a totum genericum, in relation to all the particular Congregations, as species specialissimae, of a visible Church in general, (which respect of reason in some sense we freely consent unto) but also that it may fall under the notion of a totum integrale, as some contend, (though we conceive in this notion, they are so entangled in their own logical principles, as that they cannot get out without breaking them, and flying to theological considerations) yet we say, what if that also be attained?

3 Yea further, what if this Catholic Church be in some respects of reason and order of nature also the first Church, and particular Churches, ortae?

4 Yea further, what if it were gained also by such disputes, that the Keys and Officers, Ordinances, &c. be given firstly to this Catholic Church as to the object and end? We confess we do not see that what our Brethren contend for, is by all this obtained. For, first, if the universal number of visible believers be one totum aggregatum; yet it will be hard to prove that these are one instituted and political Society, that can enjoy visible communion together in visible Worship and government; and yet more hard to prove that by the institution of Christ, these all are to be actually governed as one totum.

Secondly, what though the members of the Church Catholic be in order of time before particular Churches, as being fit matter for them, and constituting of them? yet this proves not one political body before they combine, but rather the contrary.

Thirdly, be it so that this Catholic Church is the first Church to which Christ hath firstly given the Keys, Ordinances, Promises, &c. for which Christ firstly performed the Offices of King, Priest, and Prophet, and what else soever can be said in this kind; yet all this may be in this respect that Christ looked at this Catholic Church firstly as the chief object and end for whose sake and good he ordained and gave all these things, and this will not carry the cause; for as the Church Catholic visible in this sense is the first Church in respect of the particulars, so the invisible body of Christ is in nature and priority the first Church in respect of visible, as visible; for Christ no doubt firstly intends and gives all these things to the invisible Church, as to the object and end of the same for whose good they are all ordained; rather then for the Catholic visible Church, which contains many hypocrites and reprobates within the verge of it. But now if we speak of a subject of the Keys, to which the actual exercise and dispensation of Keys and instituted Ordinances belong: who do not see that in this sense the invisible Church quâ talis, cannot be that instituted Society to which the Keys, &c. belong; and by the same reason the Catholic visible Church quâ totum, and quâ Catholic, cannot be this instituted Society to which they are given. It is a known rule in Reason, that, That which is first in intention, is last in execution; and so it is here, first, Christ propounds this end to himself to gather, edify, perfect, sanctify, save his Catholic Church, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. & 5. 26. and therefore institutes all ordinances as means to farther and attain this great design; but in execution he may (for all this) give the Keys and ordinances in regard of the immediate exercise to any form of visible Societies that he shall be pleased to institute, and it may be that will prove the least Society sooner then a greater.

And seeing our Brethren otherwise minded make much use of similes in this dispute: we hope it will not be amiss for us to illustrate what we say by a similitude, partly to make our conceivings the more plain to all whose edification we seek; and partly, to discover the invalidity of many discourses of this nature; and because similia arguunt fidem{que} faciunt, (as he saith) viz. so far as rightly applied) we will therefore propound it in way of argument. The similitude is this, genus humanum, or mankind in general is the subject of Civil government in general, and of all the privileges thereof, as the object and the end: and let the question be, whether this Catholic number of all mankind is the first subject of all power of Civil government, and the privileges thereof; and if so, whether such consequences will follow as our Brethren deduce from the unity, visibility, and priority of the Catholich Church. Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument, thus: If all that can be said from Scripture and Reason concerning the unity, visibility, and priority of the Catholic Church, may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholic body of mankind, then à p • ri it will follow that there is no more one Catholic visible instituted totum, that is the first subject of Church power and privileges in the actual exercise and enjoyment of the same, then that there is such a Catholic body of mankind that is the first subject o • Civil power, &c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholic body in communion: but it will appear from Scripture and Reason, that the same things may be said of mankind that can be said of the other; Ergo,

And it is proved per partes, thus: 1 For the unity; are not all mankind oft in Scripture called the world? Joh. 3. 16▪ So God loved the world, that is, mankind in the world; which is one. So, frequently all mankind is called man, Gen. 6. 5, 6, 7. I will not strive with man, &c. yea, it is one kingdom, Psal. 145. 11, 12, 13. which (if we view the whole Psalm) must be understood of the general government of God's providence over all the world, and especially mankind therein, 1 Chron. 29. 11, 12. &c. so that all is one kingdom, Acts 17. 26. God hath made of one blood all Nations; all are one blood, all have their bounds set by God, &c. that they might seek him, and feel after him; and as it is said for one Catholic Church, because it hath one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one Spirit, and are bound to love and pray one for the other, &c. so there is a like unity here, for the whole number of mankind hath one Lord and King over all, God who is King over all the earth called an head over all, 1 Chron. 29. 11. yea, Jesus Christ is Lord of Lord's, and King of Kings, and head over all to the Church, Ephes. 1. 22. All have one Law, the Moral Law, the common rule of equity and righteousness whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another, and this writ in the hearts of all; they have all one spirit of reason disposing them to society and mutual offices of love, one faculty of speaking to fit them for communion, one end to feel after God, Act. 17. and seek ye good of the whole kind; all ought to love one another, desire and seek the welfare of the whole, and of one another, Isaiah 58. 7. yea, the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence, and out of his love of mankind, hath a common and constant influence into all, giving not only life and breath, and all good things, Acts 17. but also all gifts of wisdom, art, skill, for Government, &c. to Kings, Judges, Fathers, Masters, and all Officers of Civil government, for the good of the whole; and what ever else may be said to prove the Catholic Church On • , may here be applied.

And as for principles of reason, it is easy to conceive that all mankind will fall either under the notion of one genus homo, whereof the individua are species specialissimae, or in another respect all persons, all Families, Cities, Kingdoms may (in a sense) make one totum integrale, or aggregatum.

Secondly, it is as evident that all this number of mankind are one visible totum, by the arguments used for the visible Catholic Church, for that which hath visible parts, is a visible totum, i • holds here as well as in the other case. Yea, if the Catholic Church be one visible Body, because it hath organs and visible Officers in it, it will hold here, for all mankind is but one Army of the Lord of Hosts, who hath Armies of heaven, and Armies on earth, and in this Body God by his Providence hath set, and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers, Masters, Husbands, Judges, Kings, &c. to govern in this Body of mankind for the good of the whole. Ruling and subjection by the fifth Commandment of the Moral Law, which is in all men's hearts, is ordained of God for the order, peace, and welfare of all mankind, and therefore why is not this by the same reason a totum visible?

Thirdly, for Priority, it is clear, that as God hath firstly in nature and intention given Christ to the whole Church, then to this and that particular believer, and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by shepherds. First, to the whole race of sheep. Secondly, to this or that flock. So in nature and God's intention he hath firstly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors, before they are given to this or that Family, City, Kingdom, &c. So likewise what is said of Promises, given to the Church Catholic firstly; is it not as true here? Those promises and blessings increase and multiply, Subdue the earth and inhabit it. The fear and dread of you shall be on all beasts: and all like promises and privileges of marriage, of liberty to eat flesh, &c. mentioned, Gen. 2. & 9. and all over the Scripture, are they not in nature first given to mankind? and then to this or that person, family, City? So if Church power, and all Officers and Offices be firstly given to the Catholic Church, not to this or that particular Church: So it's here, when the Scripture saith, Submit to the higher Powers, for all Powers are of God, Rom. 13 〈◊〉 me, saith God, Kings reign, and Princes decree judgment, and such like Scriptures; doth this firstly belong to this or that Kingdom, City, &c. and not rather that God hath firstly set up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind, to be obeyed of all mankind firstly, and then in this or that state. Is foederall holiness first the privilege of the Catholic Church? (which in a sense we will not now contradict) so is legitimation, first the privilege of married society in general in all mankind, and then of this or that family. Are the members of particular Churches firstly of the Catholic Church; and is it not so here? the members of every family, city, &c▪ first and last of the number of mankind; and so when the Societies are dissolved, they are still of mankind: and do not all Societies spring of mankind, and are an additament and increase to it? the one is true as well as the other.

It would be over tedious to follow this parallel so far as we might, these may be sufficient instances to guide the Reader to apply whatever else is, or can be said in this kind from the common nature and logical notions under which the Catholic Church visible may be considered: What is said that may more properly concern the case under the notion of an instituted Society, we shall consider in due place.

Now from that which hath been said, the Conclusion, as we conceive, doth easily and naturally follow, That as notwithstanding all that is said, there is no Catholic visible Body of mankind, to which, or to the Officers whereof is given the power and privileges of Civil government to rule this Catholic Body, either as one totum politicum; or the parts of it, Families, Cities, Kingdoms in communi, by subordination of all Societies with reference to the whole; or so as every King, Major, &c. should be an Officer of the whole. So these, and like consequences will not follow in respect of the guides, government, privileges, &c. of the Catholic Church, notwithstanding all that is said from these considerations of unity, visibility, priority of nature, &c.

1 Object.

If any shall Object, the case is not alike, because in this Catholic Church were universal Officers set up, as the Apostles; not so in the world of mankind.

Ans.

We say, these were but for a time in the first beginning for the setting up of the fir •• order in all the Churches; who being dead, there is none to succeed them in that respect of Catholic power.

Secondly, we say likewise, at the first for a time Adam, and after Noah, had a general power over mankind, though after them none had the like, as it is here. And therefore the comparison still runs clear.

2 Object.

If any object, as some do, in answer to an argument somewhat like this, that this similitude holds not, because there is not that external union of visible communion in the Common-wealths of the world, as in the Church; if one say, God hath placed Kings, Dukes in the Commonwealths, as in one organical Body who have one head, who giveth influence to so many organs of head, feet, &c. as the Apostle speaketh of the Body the Church, 1 Cor. 12. then indeed all the Common-wealths of the world would make but one body.

Answ.

To the Scripture alleged we shall speak after, here only let us clear our parallel. And first take the similitude as it is stated by us, and it will be clear. First, compare the Catholic number of mankind, with the Catholic Church, which is the number of called ones, and then there is as much external union of visible communion in one, as in the other. For, first, all mankind may and ought to maintain Civil communion one with another, in all Offices of humanity, for the common good of the whole, as the members of the Catholic Church do, or ought to do; and common humanity, and the command of the Moral Law binds thereto, as well as Christianity and rules of the Gospel bind here.

Secondly, if we compare Civil societies, as Families, Cities, Common-wealths with instituted Churches, it is as possible, and as well the duty of all Common-wealths in the world, by principles of humanity, and the Moral Law in all men's hearts, to maintain external union of leagues of friendship, and communion in all Offices of Civil society, as it is possible, and the duty of all Church societies, by the principles of Christianity, and rule of the Gospel to maintain external union of visible communion in the duties of Church society.

Thirdly, (not to dispute here whether there be such an external union of visible communion amongst all the visible Churches, as parts of the Church Catholic) if the reason alleged be sufficient to prove the same, viz. because there is one head in the Church, who giveth influence to so many organs of head, feet, eyes, &c. in the Church.

Then still our parallel will hold; for as this Head is no other then Christ Jesus in his spiritual Kingdom, the Church giving that influence named; so the same Lord that is King and Head over all, 1 Chron. 29. 11. Ephes. 1. 22. doth give influence to many organs in this Body of Mankind, even to all Kings, Judges, Fathers of Families.

And Christ is the same in respect of all authority, power, gifts, administrations Civil, &c. to this Kingdom of Men, as he is to the Kingdom of his Church of all power spiritual: And although the Church be a Body of nearer relation to Christ, then the Body of mankind; yet in regard of a common relation between a Head and Body there is a similitude, which is sufficient in this case.

There is one thing more we meet withal that here we shall remove, viz. when it is objected that the Catholic visible Church cannot be one, because it cannot convent together in one Society; it is answered usually, that such coming together in one society is not needful, because as a Kingdom may be one, though all parts of it never meet together, having the same King, Laws, &c. And as an Army may be one, having the same General, the same Laws of Discipline, the same cause, &c. though the several Brigades should never be drawn up into one body: So the Catholic Church having the same King, Laws, Cause, Enemies, is but one though it never meet.

To this we shall here Reply so far as it lies in our way: 1 As all union is for communion, and all communion flows from union; so look of what nature the union is, such, and no other is the communion; and look of what nature the communion ought to be, of like nature ought the union to be, else it will not reach the end. And therefore here as the mystical spiritual union of the Catholic Church to Christ the head by faith, and to one another by love, is sufficient to afford spiritual communion with the same: So unto Political communion there must be a Political union into one policy. And as the nature of Political communion is, such must the nature of the union be, that it may reach the end.

To apply this, a Political Church is instituted of Christ for communion in all the Worship and Ordinances of Christ instituted in the Gospel, as the Ministry of the Word, the Seals and Discipline; now no Church as One can have communion with Christ and one another in these things, but it must have a Political union suitable thereunto, that is, they must be one Society that can at least meet to combine together.

And therefore if all Churches make one Political Body, for Political communion, it must be such an union as will reach that end, which cannot be imagined in such a Catholic totum politicum as the Catholic Church. 'It is true, distinct Churches (as distinct Kingdoms) may have communion in some political privileges answerable to their union, consisting in a fraternal relation one unto another, yet not make up one Body Political; of which we speak.

Secondly, to the similitudes brought, we answer, This whole Kingdom or Army is properly and clearly one Political Body under one Political head the King or General, as stands by Covenant as members of that one Policy; and those who have right to choose their King or General, may and do some time or other convene. Let the like be shown in the Catholic Church, that all Political Churches are molded up into one Political Body, either de jure, or de facto, or that it is possible (as the case stands) so to be, and then the similitudes would be of some use.

Thirdly, in a Kingdom or Army, suppose they never meet, yet there is such political union as fully reaches the political communion for which end it was combined, viz. that they should enjoy peace and justice in and by a just Government, or by the protection of the Army. But if such a political Body were combined to have such communion as a Church-communion is, then it would require conventing together, as elsewhere we shall more fully manifest: For our parts, we do not see that Christ hath ordained the whole Catholic church as One, to have political communion together, which is impossible.

And therefore we see no need of such a Political combination, but as he hath ordained a Brotherly communion of counsel and helpfulness one to another, as need requires; so a spiritual relation and brotherly consociation of Churches together is union sufficient for such a communion.

And thus far we have endeavored to take away all those arguments which are built upon the general considerations of the unity, visibility and priority of the Catholic church, which we leave to the consideration and examination of the judicious.

We shall now, (as the Lord shall help us) come to clear the state of this knotty controversy, as we think it ought to be stated and carried. Viz.

What is that form of a Political Church which Jesus Christ in the Gospel hath instituted and appointed as the subject of Church power of government, and administration of all the ordinances of the Gospel for actual communion with Christ, and one with another therein? And here give us leave before we enter into the question itself, to make a little further use of our former similitude for illustration; and then we will show where the ne plus ultra, as we conceive must stand. It hath been shown in respect of the body of mankind, that although much may be said for the unity, visibility, and priority thereof before any parts of it, yet no reason will enforce that it is the first subject of Civil power, &c. in respect of actual administration, and immediate enjoyment thereof, and so here in respect of the Church. We will now add but this one thing more, that notwithstanding all such reasons, yet in execution for the good of the whole, the least civil society, yea, a family may be, and is the first subject of civil power, and privileges of civil government; so the least political Church society may be the first subject of these Keys of Church power in the exercise thereof, and of immediate communion in all visible ordinances, and we think that there by Divine institution it is seated, and the edification and perfection of the Catholic Church may best be attained thereby.

Concerning Families, we see no footsteps in the propagation of mankind from Adam and Noah, of any sovereign or universal government, further then in the first Fathers of mankind, after whom as they increased, families went out, and combining made cities, and so Common-wealths by mutual consent, as in Gen. 10. and other Stories appear, except by the tyrannous usurpations of some as Nimrod, the rest were brought under; and this no doubt amongst any free people is still the most orderly, just and safe way of erecting all forms of civil government, Families to combine into Towns, Cities, Kingdoms, or Aristocratical States. But here some will say; If so, that according to this similitude, a particular congregation may be the first Church that have the Keys of Church power, and Church communion; then as families should combine into Towns and Cities, and they into greater Common-wealths, for the good of all mankind; so here these first Churches may not stand independently, but ought to combine into greater Bodies, till they come to be one whole Church; to this we say, this will not follow upon this evident reason, because civil societies and government thereof, is herein left to rules of human prudence by the Lord and governor of the whole world; and therefore may admit various forms of Government, various Laws and Constitutions, various privileges, &c. according as men shall conceive best for themselves, so they be not against the common moral rules of equity, and the good of those Societies: but here in the Kingdom of Christ as we must attend what kind of Church he hath instituted, so we must cleave to such rules, privileges, and forms of government and administrations as he hath ordained, not presuming to go one step beyond the same. And hence it is not in the power of any Church to alienate the power, rights, or privileges Christ have set in the same, or to mould up any other political Churches then he hath appointed; and here we conceive stands immovably the ne plus ultra of this similitude between the visible Church, and the estate of mankind in reference to power and government, &c. All which things well weighed, to us seems to overthrow all such intermediate forms of Churches, or the usual Churches, as Mr. Ball calls the same; as, Classical, Provincial, Diocesan, National, Patriarchicall, &c. which we see not how according to the rule of Christ they can be constituted either descendendo, from the common nature of the Catholic Church; or ascendendo, from the combination of particulars, except institution can be found for the same. We find indeed, that some endeavor to build such forms upon the foundation of Moral principles, and the Law of nature; as, That God hath given government to be over a multitude, and that of many Societies, as well as persons, that one Society may not suffer as well as one person; and that therefore must be given of the God of grace to a society and multitude of little Churches power of external government.

To which we answer; 1 That there is no such principle in nature that generally binds free Societies to submit to one common government; must many Kingdoms, &c. by consequence all kingdoms combine in government, lest one kingdom be hurt, • . must Moab, Ammon, Edom, Tyre, Sidon, Judea, &c. being so contiguous in near vicinity to each other, combine in one government? 2 Is it not as suitable to morality and reason, in such combinations, that they set up One to rule over them, when many grow ignorant, evil, or heady, to preserve peace, and prevent wrong, as to set up many? 3 Did Abraham, Lot, Melchizedek, and such family Churches, walk against grounds of morality and nature, that did not so combine? We might add more, but forbear; but we could desire our dear Brethren to be wary of scattering such principles; for though in the matters of the Church, and Worship, and Government of Christ, grace doth not destroy nature, yet look as a particular Church constitution and government was never erected by the Law of nature; but Divine institution, so for the governing of many over one, why should there not be the like institution?

But to come more near to the case itself, we shall endeavor to clear two things:

1. That there is no Catholic political Church society instituted by Christ, to which the actual administration and participation of Church government and communion in the instituted ordinances of Christ, is given as to the first subject thereof.

2. That the true form of all Church societies instituted by Christ, to which he hath given the actual administration and immediate participation of Church government, and all other instituted ordinances, as the subject thereof, is only Congregational.

First, concerning the first, to make our discourse more distinct and plain, we shall premise here, that we do not here at all take in, or respect that question about the power of the Keys, whether it be in the fraternity or guides, (we shall God willing have a fit place to speak something of it) but here (that we may not intermingle things) we look only at the true subject, in which, and unto which the actual and immediate dispensation and participation of Church government and outward ordinances is given by the institution of the Gospel. And here we first reason thus, Such a Church society as Christ instituted, the Apostles of Christ constituted and governed in: But the Apostles never constituted such a Catholic church society, or governed it in such a manner as is said: Ergo. The Proposition is evident, because the Apostles were to do whatsoever Christ commanded in Matth. 28. 20. and were sufficiently furnished with power and wisdom so to do: Besides, the Apostles having all power from Christ as he received from the Father, John 20. and the whole number of believers being then at the fewest, there was never since such an opportunity or possibility to constitute such a Church, if Christ Jesus had instituted such a thing. The assumption or second part of the reason is proved thus, If the Apostles ever constituted and administered in such a Church catholic, it was either that at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 1, & 2. &c. or that assembly that met, Acts 15. (for we meet with no other that can with any color of reason be supposed) But neither of these were such a constituted Church; Ergo. 1 Concerning the Church named, Acts 1. carried on, Acts 2. &c. we freely grant it was a constituted Church, wherein the Apostles with Elders and Deacons afterward chosen did govern, for as it is called a Church, Acts 2. 47. so likewise we see there were in it elections, Act. 1. & 6. and administrations of instituted ordinances of worship, Acts 2. 41, 42. admission of members, Chap. 2. 41, 47. and by the same reason there might have been excommunication also: But that this Church was not the Catholic Church, we prove thus: If it were the Catholic church, then it was such either in respect of the whole essence of the Catholic church, or in respect of representation; but neither ways: Ergo. The first it could not be, because it consisted at the first but of 120. which was a very small part of the Catholic number of visible believers; for, 1 Cor. 15. 6. there were above 500 Brethren to whom Christ appeared at once, which was but some few weeks before, besides all that in the Jewish Church were converted and baptized by John, which were very many; yea, if we speak of the Catholic church, properly all the Jewish Church, not yet dissolved, were part of the Catholic church of that age visible. Lastly, if it had been the Catholic church, believers being already of it, could not be said to be added to this; as, Acts 5. 13, 14. Secondly, it was not Catholic in respect of representation, for if so, then in respect of the Apostles only as the Catholic guides, or in respect of the whole assembly with them, Acts 1. not the first, for then the Apostles only should have had power to set apart Barnabas and Matthias, but it is evident that that election was by Peter himself committed to, and acted by the whole company called the Brethren and Disciples, Acts 1. 15, 16, 26. where it appears that as he spake to all, so it was concluded with the common suffrages of all.

Secondly, if so, because the Apostles were Catholic guides, then where-ever they met was a Catholic church, yea, where two or three, or any one of them was, there was the Catholic representative church, and so many such churches, for any two or one had the catholic power as well as all; Paul ordains, rules, and orders of discipline in all the churches, as well as if all the Apostles had met, 1 Cor. 7. 17. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 2 That assembly was not the representative catholic church, because, first, there were the women in the same, now women are no way capable of being messengers to represent churches: secondly, besides, these could not be representative messengers from other churches, because this was the first constituted church; we see no color of reason that there were any other constituted visible churches before this. Lastly, all the actions of that Church mentioned, especially those in Acts 2. 41, 42. of admission of members, baptism, word, seals, fellowship day by day in such ordinances, choice of Deacons, &c. speak aloud against a representative Church, we should rather have heard of constitutions, censures, &c. from such a representative Catholic church of general counsel.

Object.

We are not ignorant what is said to the contrary, viz. That it was the Catholic Church, because they elected a Catholic officer for the whole Church, viz. an Apostle.

Ans.

To which we answer; 1 All the Catholic church and guides thereof had no power so to do, no more then a particular church, being a case reserved to Christ himself, else Paul's argument to prove his Apostleship had not been strong; because he was not called by man, but by Christ himself, and had seen the Lord, &c. Gal. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 9. 1. 2 The act of the Church was only a preparatory act thereunto with an after consent: the election was properly done immediately by a lot, and what was done might as well be done in the first particular Church guided by the infallible spirit of the Apostles, as by the Catholic Church itself.

Object.

Secondly, it is objected, Many of these were men of Galilee, which by their habitation could not pertain to the Church in Jerusalem.

Answ.

True, the Apostles and others were of Galilee, but they had forsaken all to follow Christ, and were commanded by Christ to remain a time at Jerusalem, and then to go forth to Samaria, Judea, and the utmost parts of the earth, Acts 1. 4, 8. and therefore no Church relation in Galilee could hinder them from joining in this first constituted Church, or give any color that they came as members representative from any Churches in Galilee. And so much for the plea for a Catholic church from Acts 1. &c. Now concerning that which is supposed of a Catholic church representative in Act. 15. If it were such, then in respect of the Apostles (the catholic Officers) only, or in respect of the body of the Assembly also, but in neither respects: Ergo.

1▪ Not the first, for then as was said, any one Apostle may make a representative Catholic church, having the whole power, as much as all of them together; for though they would meet oft to consult and assist one another; yet not for defect of power in any one; and we think our brethren here will not say it was in respect of the Apostles alone, supposing here they acted rather as Elders with the rest, then out of their Apostolical power.

2 Not in respect of the whole Assembly, for then that assembly must consist of the messengers of all the particular Churches, and the decrees should have been directed to all the Churches; but neither of these can appear; For, first, we read of no other messengers but those from Antioch, and how to evince more then the Scriptures reveal, is hard. Secondly, if we look back and consider how far the Gospel was spread before this assembly, it will appear very strange and absurd to suppose such a thing; for Paul had been in Arabia before ever he came to Jerusalem, Gal. 1. 17. and when he and Barnabas were sent out from Antioch, Acts 13. they went to several Islands and Countries, as Cyprus, Paphos, Salamis, &c. besides what other places scattered Christians and Apostles had preached in: now there is no probability of messengers▪ sent from all these places.

Secondly, the decrees were expressly directed to the Gentiles believing, in Antioch, Syria, and Silicia, where it seems this question had troubled the minds of the Disciples, Acts 15. 23, 24. which was far short of the Catholic church; neither is it proved that the Churches of Syria and Silicia had any messengers there, much less that all the Churches had their messengers.

Object.

But it is said, they might have had their messengers there, if they would, and therefore they were bound to the decrees as of a general Council.

Answ.

It must first be proved, that all Churches had lawful summons to send their messengers to that Assembly, before there can be laid any blame on them for neglecting the same, or they be all tied to the decrees of such an Assembly as a general Council, which seems to us not so much as probable, much less to be proved by anywhere the Scripture is so silent.

Arg. 2.

Every political Body is constituted by the combination of all the members into a Society.

But Christ hath not instituted that the Catholic church should combine into a Society. Ergo.

Propos.

Proved, because there can be no instances given of any free Society, civil or sacred, that was under policy, but that it arose from combination.

How came Israel to be one National church, but by a National covenant? and that before it had Officers; or how comes any national, provincial, classical Church that are pleaded for to be such, but by some such combination? Why is this Church of this Classis not of another but by combination? Secondly, in a political body, the whole hath power to order every part, but this power among persons that are free, is only by combination.

Assump.

Proved: first, because Christ never instituted that which is impossible, as this is, for the Catholic visible Church in every age so to do.

Secondly, Christ ordained combination for communion in his Worship, but this communion also is impossible to the Catholic church as one: Ergo.

Thirdly, corrupt Churches are visible Churches, but it is hard for us to believe, or any to prove that Christ hath instituted such combination of all Churches, Asian, African, European, American, corrupt and uncorrupt, for prudent men may easily foresee the heavy consequents thereof.

Argum. 3.

Every Political Church by the institution of Christ hath power to elect her own Pastor or Pastors over it.

But the Catholic visible Church hath not such power: Ergo.

Proposit.

Proved. This all Scripture examples show, that every Church or flock of believers had her Pastor, Act. 14. Tit. 1.

Secondly, (according to our Brethren's principles) if a particular Church may choose a Pastor, much more the Catholic, because all privileges are primarily given to the Catholic church, and what belongs to the part of a similar Body, (as a part) that much more belongs to the whole.

Assump.

Proved first, If the Catholic church may choose Pastors over it, then they may make Apostles, because Catholic Pastors over the Catholic Church.

Secondly, the Reasons against an universal Bishop are strong here, as that their office is not described in the Word, nor their power able to reach all Churches.

If it be said, that the Catholic church can choose her Pastors in the parts or particular Societies, which are Pastors of the Catholic church, though not Catholic Pastors of the Catholic church.

Answ.

If this be meant of the particular Churches choosing Pastors over themselves, who are in some respects for the good of the whole, (as being partes partium, and so partes totius▪ ) then they come to our hand, for thus it appears that there is no Catholic totum, that is the subject of officers but in its parts.

But the question is, Whether all particular Churches having the officers in them, do make one political Body or Catholic church, and so have power to choose Catholic Pastors.

Argum. 4.

Christ Jesus instituted no such political Body as destroys Church policy.

But such a Catholic church political destroys policy: Ergo.

Assump.

Proved: because it swallows up the power not only of all Churches congregational, but all other forms of Churches, by taking the power of excommunication from them; for the power of excommunication is seated by Christ in that Church, from which there can be justly no appeal, for Matth. 18. the power of excommunication is seated in such a Church, as whatsoever it binds on earth, is bound in heaven by the highest Judge, in the highest Court; and from the sentence of this highest court and Judge, how can there be any appeal?

But now supposing such a Catholic church having power of excommunication, and that as the highest Church, hence no inferior Church can bind on earth, so as that the same is bound in heaven, seeing appeals may be made from them to an higher power on earth.

Object.

If it be said that the sentence of an inferior Judge, proceeding rightly (as in an inferior Sanhedrin) is ratified in heaven, yet may we appeal from him.

Answ.

We deny that the sentence of every civil Court doth bind in heaven (in the sense of our Savior:) for every civil Court hath not this promise of binding and loosing, the power of the Keys not belonging to the civil Magistrate.

Secondly, suppose there were such a binding in civil Courts, and appeals may be yet made from them, yet this is because there is supposed a supreme Court in being, to which the appeal may be prosecuted and there determined, (as in the highest Sanhedrin of Israel. ) But there is not in the Church, nor like to be, such a supreme Court where such appeals may be ended: Ergo.

Object. 2▪

If it be said, that what a particular Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, except they err, but then appeals may be made, and their power is gone.

Answ.

On this ground the universal Church should not have power to bind on earth so as in heaven without appeals, for they may err; and that not only rarely but frequently; witness the complaint of Nazianzen and others of the time passed; yea, they may be as much inclined to err▪ considering the greatest part of Churches in the world are for the most part corrupt, yea, though they may have better eyes, yet they are further from the mark; if particular Churches have no power of excommunication, because they may err, be corrupt, be partial, or be divided; upon the same consideration, neither Classical, National, or oecumeniall Councils have any such power; for they may err, grow corrupt, be partial, and be miserably divided, as well as a congregational Church; other Churches may admonish in case of scandal, and counsel, when a particular congregation wants light; and moderate (if desired) in case of difference; but still the power is in the particular Church.

Other arguments might be added, but seeing this controversy, as we hope, will be more fully and purposely disputed by a far better hand, therefore we shall fall to the consideration of such Scriptures, and some few general Arguments which we meet withal in Mr. Ball briefly propounded, and in divers other Authors more largely insisted upon; which if the Lord be pleased to help us to vindicate and clear up, we think other reasons and Scriptures of less force will fall of themselves.

And first we find, Cant. 6. 4. &c. to prove the whole Catholic church visible to be one Ministerial Body, because it is called One, compared to an Army terrible with Banners, in respect of the order of Discipline, and described as being an organical Body having eyes, hair, teeth, &c.

Answ.

1 Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa, except it can be made clear that the parable is applied according to the true scope of it, and no further, which here is very hard to evince: we know the whole Book of the Canticles is variously applied by good Interpreters, Brightman (none of the meanest in this kind of Scriptures) applies this place to the church of Geneva, and the times of purer Churches to arise after it, which are said to be terrible as an Army with Banners; not in respect of Discipline, but in respect of warlike power, whereby that state of the church shall defend itself.

2 But suppose that it is a description of the catholic church visible, yet it cannot be a sufficient argument that it is one Ministerial church: For, first, the catholic church is the same in all ages, and therefore by this reason it was a catholic Ministerial body, as well in the days from Adam to Abraham, &c. as in the New Testament▪ Secondly, by this argument we may prove Christ the head and husband of the church to be an organical body, as he is the Head of the Church, for Cant. 5. 10, 11. &c. the Church doth allegorically describe the beauty and excellency of Christ, in several organs and parts: but we suppose though Christ Jesus in his human nature hath members, yet the scope of the Church is not at all to set forth the members of his human body, but the glorious excellencies, and spiritual perfections of Christ as the Redeemer and Savior of his Church, according to the manner of Lovers, who are taken with the beauty of their spouses in all their members; When the spouse saith, Cant. 1. 1. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth; it were too gross to apply it to the humanity of Christ, or to argue from thence that Christ the husband of his Church is an organical body.

Thirdly and lastly, when the Church is called One, the only one of her Mother; though it's true she is one, it seems rather to set out her excellency as rare, and but one, then her unity: and so the other descriptions all tend to set forth her beauty in the eye and esteem of Christ; neither is it anything that the Church is compared to an Army terrible with banners, for in the same Chap. verse. the last, she is compared to the company of Mahanaim, or two Armies, (which is all one) for the company of Mahanaim consisted of two Armies, Gen. 32. 1, 2, 3. where Jacob's host meeting an host of Angels, he calls the place Mahanaim, or, two Hosts; and therefore we may as well say the Catholic church is terrible, with two Armies of Banners, as one.

Answ.

A second and chief Scripture we meet withal in divers Authors is 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. &c. Whence the reason stands thus: That church wherein Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, &c. are set, is an organical Church.

But those are set in the Catholic visible Church; Ergo.

For the better clearing of this Scripture, it is needful, that we attend the scope of the Apostle, who coming now to another branch of the things this Church had written unto him about, Chap. 7. 1. & 8. 1. & 12. 1. and this about spiritual gifts, wherein they abounded, Chap. 1. 7. being the occasion of all their contentions and disorders, Chap. 1. 12, 13. hence he is studious the more to re-unite them again, Chap. 12. 13. and to direct them how to improve their gifts orderly to edification, Chap. 14. and in this Chapter he persuades their minds to unity who were divided, partly through pride in their own gifts; partly, by disdain of others not so gifted; hence he puts them in mind; 1 What once they were following dumb idols. 2 That all gifts are from the free dispensation of God, and that one God, one Lord, one Spirit. 3 That God in his wisdom hath dispensed great variety of gifts, operations and administrations. 4 That all are given to profit withal, and these things he illustrates by a simile taken from a natural body, which having largely presented and applied to this Church, verse. 27. he concludes with the variety of administrations in such things wherein they so much differed, Chap. 1. 12, 13. God hath set, saith he, in the Church not only Apostles, or Prophets, or tongues, &c. but all these; are all Apostles? are all Prophets, &c? no, but the wisdom of God hath given you variety of these gifts and administrations; and therefore, Chap. 3. to quiet them, he saith, Paul an Apostle, Apollos an Evangelist, &c. all are yours; and as this is the scope of the Apostle, so we see nothing in the Chapter but is appliable to Corinth in particular, yea, applied unto them by the Apostle, as what he spake verse. 22. of one body, he applies to them, verse. 27. what he spake, verse. 28. of Apostles, and other gifts set in the Church, he applies also to them, Chap. 14. whereas he speaks of the exercise of divers gifts in that Church, when the whole Church came together, verse. 23, so he speaks the same of himself an Apostle, verse. 6. When I come, &c▪ We take notice of divers reasons alleged from the Chapter, that he spake of the Catholic church, but they do not enforce it; for grant such things are true of the Catholic church in a sense, viz. that in it God works all in all, in it are diversities of gifts, &c. yet the Apostles scope is to speak to this Church, as hath been shown, and all are truly appliable unto it, this Church came behind in no good gift, Chap. 1. 7. this Church was one body, verse. 27. and baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, the members of this Church needed the help one of another, must not make schisms in the Body, must care one for another, &c. yea, Apostles as well as other gifts were in the church, 1 Cor. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 6. So that from the scope and drift of the Apostle, all these Offices and gifts might be, and were set in Corinth, and therefore this place will not evince a Catholic organical body; yet we mean not that Apostles were wedged in here, but they were set also in every church, as also Teachers are in every church, but each according to the nature of the Office, the one limited, the other not.

Secondly, we deny not but in this discourse the Apostle also, verse. 12, 13. intendeth the whole mystical body of Christ, which is one Christ, neither do we deny that these gifts of Apostles, Prophets, &c. are given to this Church, but this will not prove it to be an organical Church. For what is this body of Christ, this one Christ into whom all are baptized, &c. It is properly the whole company of true believers in all ages, and so contains the invisible body of Christ; which Catholic body of all ages, cannot properly make an organical body: and be it so, that this body is visible, having visible ordinances, baptized and drunk into one body, yet the Apostle respects the real union of all the members to Christ; and therefore Interpreters understand spiritual and effectual baptism, containing the inward virtue with the outward sign.

Again, the Apostles were fit for the gathering in of the elect amongst all the heathen nations, but that proves not all these elect (who also are a part of Christ's sheep, John 10. 16.) were an organical Church, or a part of it, till called and added to the Church.

In a word, Apostles, Prophets, &c. were given to, and set in the mystical body of Christ, as the chief object and end for whose sake and good, they were intentionally ordained of Christ, but not set in it as one organical body, for the actual and immediate administration of the visible ordinances of Christ to it, but thus to it, as gathered into such Church societies as the Lord hath instituted for that end, and in this sense we agree with learned Mr. Rutherford libro of the right of Presbyt. pag. 291.

Ask (saith he) to what end, and to what first principal subject hath the Lord given reason, and the faculty to discourse? Is it to Peter, John, &c. as to the first subject, and to them as for their good? No, no, it is to, and for the race of mankind. The case is just so here, 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set Apostles, &c.

We say also it is just so here, as God hath given reason in respect of the end to mankind first, and then to the individua; so God hath set in the mystical Church for the good of it, as chiefly intended by Christ, Apostles, Prophets, &c. but now as in the actual dispensing of this gift of reason for the good of mankind, Reason is not given to any such body, as the whole race of mankind, to descend to John, Peter, &c. but first to John, Peter, and all the individuals, that so by induction of all particulars, the whole kind of reasonable man may be made up, and the end attained, and so it is here: God in giving Officers and gifts for the good of the mystical body of Christ firstly, yet in execution gives these Officers, and sets them in particular Churches, that by the edification and perfection of all particulars, the whole may be attained.

Thirdly, Apostles, Prophets, and all gifts and offices in general and indefinitely, are given to the Church indefinitely considered, but particular officers, Paul, Cephas, Apollo, Titus, Archippus, &c. are given or set in particular Churches; we mean, according to the several natures and extents of their offices; As unto Bees in general is given a power to gather honey, and order themselves in their hives; but in their exercise of this power it is given to the several swarms in the hives, who have their Queens, &c. to order themselves. But as this power in general makes not a universal organical body of Bees; no more here an universal organical Church.

Lastly, to speak more particularly, we conceive that the place in the utmost latitude of it is meant of the mystical body, that one body into which all are baptized, verse. 13. And that the fundamental mistake of our Brethren is this, that because the Church here mentioned hath Organs and political Officers in it, that therefore it must needs make one political Church, where some Organs are to rule in common, and every part is to be subject to the whole. For although the mystical Church hath Organs and political Officers in it; yet it follows not therefore that it is one political body. For the invisible Church conjoined with the visible, hath political Officers set in it, and given to it as invisible, as well as visible, in respect of God's general designation and particular application of them to this whole Church; yet it follows not that they are one political body by actual combination thereunto; actual combination, we say, for although Christ's institution must warrant and prescribe all forms of political bodies, yet it will not be found that ever there was any political Society without actual combination, whether civil or sacred, whether national or more particular. The mystical Church may be said to be organical in respect of the Officers amongst them in the several parts thereof; every part being a part of the whole spiritually, though not politically. But it doth not thence follow that the whole is one political body, but mystical. Political Officers may, and must suppose some part of the Church to be visible, but not that the whole should be Political. For the Apostles (by extraordinary Commission for their time were officers of visible believers, fit matter for a combination, as well as of particular combinations: yet it follows not that visible believers existing out of combinations were a political Society that would never meet to combine; but they were only a visible number of Saints.

We have been thus large in clearing this Scripture, because we conceive the chief strength of the contrary opinion to lie in it. And this being answered, the light of it we hope will scatter the darkness that is brought upon divers other Scriptures which are drawn to prove such a kind of Catholic Church, as Rom. 12. 4. &c. Col. 1. 25. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Ephes. 4. 11. In which last Scripture we never doubted but that the Officers were given, not for that particular Church of Ephesus only, much less to such a diminutive Congregation consisting of 40, 60, or 100 only, as if we intended to impawn all power in this or that Congregational body; but to a congregational Church considered as the genus of all particular Congregations of the world. Neither to this congregational Church only, but to all that are to be gathered to the unity of the faith. But doth this argue one political body consisting of all these? For though, verse. 16. the whole body be said to be compacted; yet that this should be understood of a political, not spiritual way of compacting, we confess (with submission) our weakness cannot apprehend.

The last Scripture which we find cited that seemeth to look this way, is 1 Pet. 5. 1. Feed the flock which is among you.

Answ.

1 We answer: It must necessarily be understood distributively, for the several flocks in all those Countries to be fed by their particular Elders; not collectively, to be fed as one flock in common: For the Countries are so many and large, as it was impossible. Yea, we have a clear parallel, James 2. 2. where writing to the Jews of the twelve Tribes scattered abroad, yet he speaks of a man coming into their Assembly; which cannot be meant collectively, as if they had one assembly amongst them all, but distributively of any assembly.

2 Though they be called a flock, not flocks, yet this, as Baines observes, was not because it was one flock really in themselves, but in some respect of reason; which also he expounds to be per internam (we had rather say, spiritualem) unionem, but not per externam combinationem; in respect of which spiritual union, that is true which Mr. Ball citeth out of Cyprian, Etsi Pastores multi sumus, unam tamen gregem pascimus. As also that there is Episcopatus unus▪ & Ecclesia una in toto mundo.

Hence also may appear an answer to divers arguments, the chief whereof we shall run through.

Object. 1.

If by baptism we are not admitted into one particular Church, but into the whole Catholic visible Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. then there is such a Catholic Church.

Answ.

Baptism admitteth us into the whole mystical body of Christ, whether visible or invisible of all ages: But this is not a Catholic Political body, of which we speak; for then every baptized person should be a member of every particular Church, and have an Oa • e in every boat, in electing Officers, admitting members, censuring offenders, &c. which Mr. Ball will not grant, and indeed would bring in endless confusion into the Churches of Christ. Besides, no man can be a member of any combined society without their consent, for otherwise so many may crowd into the Church because baptized, as shall overthrow the edification thereof, and that against the consent of the Church, and all the Officers thereof.

Object. 2.

When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan, he is cast out of the whole Catholic church, Ergo, he was a member of the whole Catholic Church, for be cannot be cast out who was never within.

Answ.

1 Some answer that he is cast out of all only consequenter, by reason of communion of Churches; neither do we see that this is taken away by saying, that, As when the left hand cutteth off a finger of the right hand, it is not the left hand only that cuts it off, but the whole man, deliberate reason and will consenting: For if this similitude would suit, then the whole Catholic church must be called to consult and consent antecedenter, before a particular Church can cut off any member, which ordinarily is impossible to be attained.

2 But further▪ according to our former principles laid down, we say he that is justly cast out of one Church, he is morally excommunicated out of all, but not politically and formally: For to excommunicate politically and formally, is by virtue of a superior authority next under Christ; so that what is bound by them, is bound in heaven. In which act the Minister doth not only bind the person, but also by virtue of his▪ Office chargeth the Church not to have communion with him. But we do not think that our Brethren will say that one Church putteth forth such an act of superior authority binding or charging all Churches politice and judicialiter not to have communion with him; for so one Church should exercise jurisdiction overall Churches, and that without their actual approbation, for, quod spectat ad omnes, debet ab omnibus approbari.

If it be said, That a particular Church doth excommunicate by an intrinsical power not only in itself, but intrinsical in the whole body; the question will be, What is that intrinsical power? Is it natural or voluntary?

To say it is natural, were too absurd; if voluntary, then neither Congregations, Classes, Provinces, Nations, have power to excommunicate without the previous consent of the whole Catholic church, which must voluntarily concur thereunto. And if the Catholic Presbytery (as is said) have no next, but a a remote power of excommunication, and this remote power be extraordinary, or raro contingens, or almost never, then the ordinary power of excommunication, (which is enough for us) is not from an intrinsical power of the Church catholic. On the other side (if it be said) this power is in the whole, but not derived from the whole to the parts, as the power of seeing is first in the man, then in the eye, yet not derived from hands, legs, shoulders, &c. and as the great body of the Sunn hath intrinsical light in every part, not by derivation from one part to another; so this power of the Keys is from Christ the Head to all the integral parts in points that severally concern the same.

First, if this be so, then every particular Congregation receives its power of the Keys immediately from Christ, not by derivation from any Presbytery, or the Catholic Church, and is in that respect Independent. Neither also can Congregations derive the power seated in them to Presbyteries, nor any greater bodies take it from them.

Secondly, though we acknowledge this intrinsical power of excommunication in particular Congregations, as being there properly seated by Christ; yet that there are any such political Churches, Classical, Provincial, National, or Catholic, that have any such intrinsical power as is in the Sunn, this is not yet proved to our understanding. We deny not the use of lesser and greater Synods, nor of such Doctrinal power as the pattern Acts 15. holdeth forth, and which is all that Learned Mr. Rutherford conceives to belong to a general Council; for thus he saith, Verily, I profess I cannot see what power of jurisdiction to censure scandals can be in a general Council, there may be some me •• Doctrinal power in such a Council, if such could be had, and that is all. And how a National, Provincial, or Classical Synod being lesser parts of the whole, can put forth such acts as the whole cannot do, ipsi viderint. 'It is true, a particular Church may formally cast out a scandalous member according to the rule, Matth. 18. yet the argument from proportion will not hold in respect of the power of excommunication in greater assemblies against any particular Church offending, (though other means appointed by Christ we deny not) for if excommunication casteth out an offender out of all Churches, then such a particular Church cannot be excommunicated, except it could be cast out of itself, though it may be deprived of the communion of other Churches.

Lastly, if it be no sin, (as is said) but a cross, that the Catholic Church cannot meet to put forth its supposed intrinsical power, then let the particular Churches enjoy that power till the Catholic Church can meet. 2 It seems to us very strange that the Lord Jesus should institute such a supreme power in a Catholic Body, which (as is said) de jure, should be till the coming of Christ, and yet should be interrupted by the sin of man so many ages, and which (for ought appears) never orderly met to this day.

Object. 3.

If all Pastors be Pastors of the Catholic Church, then there is such a Catholic Church; but all Pastors are Pastors of the Catholic Church: Ergo.

Answ.

If it be meant thus, that they are Pastors of some particular part of the Church, and in that respect in the whole, and for the good of the whole, the good of every part redounding to the good of the whole; yea, if some Pastoral care also be intended towards other Churches, and to fetch in such as are yet not of the Church; we grant all this according to the meaning of that place, 1 Cor. 12. 28. formerly opened by us.

But if this Argument intend that they are Pastors of the Catholic Body as of One Political Church, then we deny the Assumption upon this ground; because a Pastoral Office consists properly in having a charge and power over those to whom he is a Pastor, Act. 20. 28. but he hath no charge of the whole; for if so, he must give account to Christ of the whole; neither hath he power over such a Catholic church, being never chosen by it, nor it subjecting to him. If it be said, such are made Pastors by Ordination of the Presbyters, not the election of the people who only appropriate him to themselves, who is a Pastor of the whole Church: then he is either a Catholic Pastor that hath power to intermeddle in all Churches, as the Apostles had, which we think none will yield them; or else they are Pastors only in name, without power, which is absurd. Nor doth the similitude of a Physician made Doctor of Physic at large by a College of Physicians, help in this case. For it supp • seth him to be made such a Doctor before he be elected by any people to exercise this faculty; which applied to this case of a Pastor, as having Ordination to make him a Pastor at large, before election to this or that people, is utterly against all examples of Scripture, as Acts 1. & 6. & 14,

Object. 4.

That which belongeth to a little part of a similar body (quâ talis) belongs to a greater part much more; and therefore if the immediate exercise of the Keys belong to a single congregation, then much more to the whole, and to any greater part of the whole.

Answ.

1 Such as say that the Catholic Church is a similar Body, had need explicate themselves. For to speak properly and strictly, by this rule every particular visible believer being a part of the whole as a totum aggregativum, must have nomen & naturam totius, and so every believer is a Church; or if they so divide this Catholic similar body, as to make a particular Congregation that can join in God's ordinances, the minimum quod sic; then particular visible believers considered as existing out of these Congregations cannot be members formally of the Catholic visible Church.

2 We acknowledge the Catholic church considered as visible and invisible, is one spiritual or mystical body, yet this Catholic body is under no Catholic policy; but only in the several parts of it, (as hath been proved before) and in this respect the Church, which is spiritually one body, is politice many bodies: so that the parts of this spiritual to • um are not distinct bodies spirituali relatione, (for then every company of women are a Church body) but politicâ combinatione; and hence though the Catholic church be one similar body spiritually, (due cautions and interpretations observed) yet it is not one similar Body politically; and hence every society of believers is not a Church. Hence though it be true, that what belongs to a part of a similar body, as a part, belongeth much more to the whole; and that therefore what belongs to a particular Church, belongs much more to the whole: It is true in this sense, viz. what belongs to the part of the whole as spiritual, and so participates the nature of the whole, belongs much more to the whole, because the whole is spiritual: yet what belongs to the part as political, doth not much more belong to the whole, because the whole is not political: Exempli gratiâ, consider a particular Congregation, as a number redeemed, called to Christ, espoused to him, this much more belongs to the whole; and so if any privilege belong to them as such, much more to the whole. Yet consider a Church as a combined Body, so what belongs to this part, belongs not to the whole. For it belongs to the part to elect and enjoy constantly Pastors over it, but this doth not belong to the whole as a totum. The Catholic mystical Church is indeed the prima materia, out of which political Churches by their combination are formed; but it is no first formed political similar Church, whence every particular Church immediately participates of the nature of that whole, having in it partem talis materiae & partem formae.

Object. 5.

If there be Church communion between all Churches, then there is one Catholic Church: but there is Church communion of all Churches in hearing, receiving Sacraments, exhorting one another, praying one for another, &c. Ergo.

Answ.

We deny the consequence; for there may be a fraternal, Ecclesiastical communion, not only internally, but externally, without such an union as makes one political combined Body, such as here we dispute of; as, two or three Congregations may have communion together, and yet not be one political Body: Twenty synagogues might have communion together in the Jewish policy, and yet were not one political Body: so the Churches of Galatia might have communion together, yet were distinct Churches, not one Church; as also, the Churches of New England have sweet and blessed communion, yet are distinct. And though the Churches of Galatia were called a whole lump, (as is objected) yet were they thus by political combination; or as Dr. Downam (to mould up a Diocesan Church) compares the first Church to a great lump of dough, or batch of bread, out of which particular Churches were formed into many loaves; or not rather called a lump by spiritual union and relation, common profession, and fraternal communion, being all the same Country-men; so also the Apostles had Church communion, yet were not a political body. Kingdoms so may have civil communion and commerce, yet not be one Kingdom.

Object. 6.

If the Keys be given to a particular Church under the notion of the Spouse of Christ, a flock of redeemed ones, &c. and then much more to the Catholic visible Church, which is the Spouse of Christ, and flock of redeemed ones primarily, and to a particular Church only secondarily; but the first is affirmed by such as deny such a Catholic Church: Ergo.

Answ.

1 It is true, the notion of a flock of redeemed ones of the Body, and Spouse of Christ, Kingdom, House, &c. do agree primarily to the Church, not of this, but of all ages, and secondarily to the Church of this age, Colos. 1. 18. Ephes. 5. 25, 26. and 2. 19.

2 The Church which is the Body of Christ existing in this age, the Keys are given to it primarily, in comparison of particular Churches coexisting with it, as to the chief object and end; but not to it as a political Body, in respect of actual and immediate dispensation thereof: for (as we have oft said) if in respect of Political dispensation the Keys belong firstly to the Body of Christ as his Spouse and redeemed ones; then the Church invisible as invisible, rather then visible, must have the dispensation of the Keys primarily.

3 It is not said, that the Keys are immediately given to a particular Church abstractly, as a number of redeemed, but as consociated and politically combined: And in this respect that may be attributed to the part, a particular Congregation of redeemed ones, which cannot be attributed to the whole. Ex. gr. such a Congregation is combined, so is not the whole, nor can be; such a Church may choose a Pastor over it, but so cannot the whole; so a man may tell the particular Church, who may convene together, not so the whole.

Thus far (through the help of Christ) we have endeavored to clear the first Point propounded concerning a Catholic instituted Church. We come now to prove the second Point, viz. That Jesus Christ hath instituted in the Gospel a particular Church of one Congregation, in which, and unto which the actual and immediate dispensation and participation of all instituted Worship do regularly and ordinarily belong.

And here we shall show: 1 What such a particular Church is. 2 How the dispensation of Church power and privilege do belong unto it. For the first, we shall declare ourselves in these Five Propositions.

1 It must be a visible Society, for One man cannot make a Church, nor can many visible believers living severally, without society in several Nations make One Church.

2 It's not every Society of visible Professors that do make a Church, for then every family of such Professors are a Church: Then two or three (which our Brethren so much condemn) are a Church; and then a Society of Women professing the truth may be a Political Church; then many members of several Churches met to hear a Sermon, or any like occasion, make a Church; then a number of Professors may constitute a Diocesan Church, or any like form; for out of this block, That any number of believers made a Church, Dr. Downam hewed out his Diocesan Church, and so made a fit seat for his Diocesan Mercury. Lastly, then particular Churches should have no more any set Form prescribed, then Civil government, which is as variable as human wisdom sees meet, for hence a particular Church may be melted into any form or mould of civil Society; for imagine a number of professing believers, cohabiting either in a City, Hundred, Wapentake, Shire, Province, Nation, Empire, &c. there shall then be so many forms of Churches contrary to the principles and unanswerable arguments of our best Reformers, who accounted it a great absurdity that the heavenly Kingdom of Christ should be molded and framed according to the weakness of human wisdom and policy.

3 It must therefore be a Society combined, and that by a Covenant explicit or implicit, for it must be such a combined Society where the whole have power over its members; now whatever power one hath over another, if it be not by way of conquest or natural relation, (as the father over the child) it is by covenant, as husband and wife, Master and servant, Prince and people; other powers are but usurpations: it is noted as a profane speech in Brennus, who professed he knew no other rule of Justice, then for the greater to subdue the less. Again, it is such a Society as hath an ordinate power, to subject itself to Officers, by electing of them to administer ordinances amongst them; but this is only a federal Society.

Again, it is such a Society, to the making up of which is required something more then faith, Acts 5. 14. Believers were added to the Lord, or to his Church; so that they were first believers, before they were added to the Church; for there may be a number of believers converted at one Sermon, and immediately scattered into many Towns or Countries: Now, if faith professed alone, makes not a Church, but somewhat more is required, what can that be but foederall combination?

Lastly, that, the dissolution whereof doth unchurch a people, doth constitute a Church: but breaking the combination dissolves the Church, whether by consent, schism, or when God himself removes the candlestick: Ergo.

4 Though a Church be such by combining, and so subjecting themselves to the power of others, yet it must not be herein illimited, but according to the form and mould expressed in the Word; for if they have this power to combine as many, and as largely as they will, then a Diocese, Province, Nation, may combine, and so put themselves under the power of a Diocesan, Provincial, National society, which is unlawful; for the Church must be such a form as a man may ordinarily bring offenses unto it, according to Matth. 18. Tell the Church; but that cannot be in a Diocese, much less in a Province or Nation, where the Members can neither take notice of the offense, nor ordinarily so much as consent unto any censure acted by any Officers in such a Church; nay, further, if their power be unlimited, they may choose a Diocesan Pastor, one, or many to feed all, or one to rule (like Beza his Episcopus humanus ) with subjection in case of error to the censure of all; nay, hence we see not, but they may choose an universal Pastor, and so give away the power to one, if all will agree.

In a word, they only may combine into a Political Body, where the whole may excommunicate any part; but this cannot be in a combination of many Churches into one whole, because no particular Church is capable of excommunication, for it is impossible to be cast out of itself, as was said before.

5 A particular Church therefore must be such a Society as is so combined together, that it may ordinarily enjoy Church communion, to exercise Church power, to be fed by her Officers, and led by them; hence Titus was to set Elders in every Church, and these Elders were such as could ordinarily feed them, by preaching the Word, as well as rule and govern them.

Now that such a Congregational Church is the institution of the Gospel, appears first by those many Scriptures that speak of the Churches of one Country, and in small compass, as several Churches, not as one, as the Churches of Judea, Samaria, and Galil • e, Acts 9. the Churches of Galatia, Gal. 1. 1. yea, not only in one small Country, but in Cities, or near unto them; we read of distinct Churches, as Corinth, though God had much people there, yet it was one Congregation, 1 Cor. 14. 33. and had another Church near to it, viz. Cenchrea: Also Rome, whom the Apostle saluting, sends also salutations by them to Aquila and Priscilla, with the Church in their household, which show they were not far from that Church of Rome. To these add, that Jerusalem the first Church that was constituted by the Apostles, and whose number was the greatest of any that we read of, yet it was but one Congregation, as is evident by Acts 1. and Chap. 2. 41, 42. What is objected against this to prove it the Catholic Church, was answered before; other objections against this, and like examples, shall be considered in their due place, as we meet with them.

But we shall not need to say much, that a Congregation furnished with its Officers is a Church according to the institution of the Gospel, but there are more objections against the completeness thereof, which yet is proved thus, That Church which hath power of all the Keys given unto it for actual administration within itself, is a complete Church: But so hath a particular Congregation, Ergo. The first part is evident; because where all the Keys are with full power to administer the same, there nothing is wanting; the Assumption is proved thus, If all those Officers to whom is given the authoritative power of exercising the Keys, be given to a Congregation; then all the Keys are so given to it, but so it is; for since Apostles and extraordinary Officers ceased, there are no other Officers but Pastors, Teachers, and Rulers, called sometimes Bishops, sometimes Elders: but these Officers are given to such a Church, as is proved Acts 14. Tit. 1. 4. and is acknowledged in all Reformed Churches, who ordain such Officers in particular Churches of one Congregation: Ergo.

Object. 1.

If it be said, that though a Congregation hath such Officers as have the power of the Keys, yet that such must combine with others in way of co-ordination to govern in common, and so to be helped and completed by them.

Answ.

We grant much help may be had by sister Churches, and consultative Presbyteries, but that which takes away the exercise of the Keys in point of government from the church to whom Christ hath given it, doth not complete it, but take away and destroy the power and liberty of it; for though the Pastor of a congregation may oft consent, yet the major part of the Presbytery must carry it, whether he consent or no, and therefore his power is swallowed up. Besides, it seems to us a mystery, that every Pastor, even such as have no flock, should be Pastors of the Catholic church, and yet a Pastor should not have power to rule in his own flock over which Christ hath made him a Bishop, and for which flock he must give account unto God.

Object. 2.

It cannot have a Synod, which is one ordinance of God, therefore it is not a complete Church.

Answ.

By this reason a Classical church is not complete, because it cannot have a National council; nor a National church, because it cannot have a general council; if it be said a classis have all ordinary means to a complete church, we say the like of a congregation.

Object. 3.

Though a Town or family being cast alone, may govern as a complete body; yet when it stands in a common-wealth, as in England, it may not be so independent, but submit to combinations: so here when a particular Congregation is alone, it may govern as complete; not so when amongst other Churches.

Answ.

If such a Town or family have complete power, and all civil Officers within itself, it is not bound to submit to such combinations in a common-wealth, except it be under a superior power that can command the same. As Abraham having a complete government in his family was not bound to combine with the governments he came amongst, neither did he; in prudence he joined in a league of amity and for mutual help with Aner, &c. but not to submit to their government: so here a Church having complete Officers is not bound to submit to such combinations, except it be proved that any superior power of other churches can command the same.

Secondly, though a family no • having complete civil government in itself must combine where it stands in a commonwealth, yet never to yield up its family-government over wife, children and servants to rule them in common with other Masters of families, no civil prudence or moral rule taught men ever so to practice; and therefore why in such a case should a Church give up the government of itself to Pastors of many Churches to rule it in common, and not rather as a Classis is over-awed by the Provincial only in common things; so in congregations Pastors should govern their flocks, and only in things common be under a Presbytery. If it be said, That the Classis do act in such things only; for in excommunication of an offender, the offense is common to all. We answer, if so, then why should not the Provincial and National Churches by this reason assume all to themselves from the Classis? for the offense of one is common to all: As also upon this ground, why should not the Classis admit all the members of every Congregation under them? for this also may concern them all.

Thirdly, here is a great difference, for civil Societies are left to civil prudence, and may give up themselves to many forms of government: but Churches are bound to use and maintain such order of government as Christ hath set in the church, and not to give it up to many, no more then to one: If testimonies were needful, we might produce Zanchi, Zwinglius, Parker, Baines, and others, who are fully with us in this doctrine of a particular church; yea, Dr. Downam himself confesseth; that the most of the churches in the time of the Apostle Paul did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation; and this confession puts us in mind of a witty passage of his Refuter, or his Epistoler, who against the Bishops maintains the doctrine of congregational churches with us; with whose expressions, (for the recreation of ourselves and the Reader) we will conclude: The Papist, (saith he) he tells us (just as the Organs go at Rome) that the extent of a Bishops jurisdiction is not limited but by the Popes appointment, his power of itself indifferently reaching over all the world. Our Prelatists would persuade us (to the tune of Canterbury) that neither church nor Bishop hath his bounds determined by the Pope, nor yet by Christ in the Scriptures, but left to the pleasure of Princes, to be cast into one mould with the Civil State. Now the plain Christian finding nothing but human uncertainties in either of these devises, be contenteth himself with plain song, and knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such Societies as may assemble themselves together for the worship of God, and that unto such he hath given their peculiar Pastors; he, I say, in his simplicity calleth▪ these Assemblies, the Churches of Christ, and these Pastors, his Bishops.

Thus much concerning the nature of a particular church, and that it is instituted in the Gospel.

Now in the second place we are to show how church government and Ordinances are given to it as to the proper subject of the same. Where we shall propound these Theses for explication of ourselves.

First, Though Pastourship considered as an office in relation to a people to feed them anthoritatively, be one of these Ordinances given to a particular church: Yet Christ hath given it for the gathering in of his elect unto the church, and therefore we grant some acts of the Ministry, viz. the preaching of the Word, is to be extended beyond the bounds of the church.

Secondly, Seals and other Privileges although de jure, and remotely they belong to the catholic church, or the number of believers: yet de facto and nextly they belong properly to this Subject which we speak of, (as we hope to make good.)

Thirdly, They are not so appropriated to such congregations only as to exclude the members of those congregations which are unde • the government of a common Presbytery or other forms of government, for we have a brotherly esteem of such congrega • ions, notwithstanding that tertium quoddam separabile of government, (as Mr. Baines calls it) being a thing that cometh to a church now constituted, and may be absent, the church remaining a Church.

Fourthly, although it be said by some Divines, that as faith is the internal form of the church, so profession of faith is the outward form, and that therefore bare profession of saith makes a member of the visible church, yet this must be understood according to the interpretations of some of them who so speak, for there is a double profession of faith; Personal, which is acted severally by particular persons; and common, which is acted conjointly in, and with a Society: The first makes a man of the catholic number of visible Saints, and so fit matter for political church-society: the other makes a man of the political church formally and completely; and in this latter sense profession of faith is the external form of a visible church, but not in the other.

Now that in and to this subject so professing, the seals and other ordinances belong may, be proved thus:

Argum. 1.

First, the seals and other Church-ordinances must either belong to the Catholic church as such, or to the particular Church: but these cannot belong to the Catholic in actual dispensation whereof we now speak: Ergo. For that Church which is uncapable of actual dispensation of seals, censures, &c. is uncapable of the participation thereof in an orderly and ordinary way; But the Catholic number of visible believers as Catholic, and out of particular Societies, are not capable of dispensing the same; Ergo.

The Proposition is evident, for it cannot be shown that any Church in the New Testament was ever capable of participating in seals, that was not capable of dispensing them, at least not having a next power to elect Officers to do it.

The Assumption is evident from what hath been proved, that it is no political Body (the sole subject of Church administrations) neither in the whole, nor in the parts as existing out of Congregations.

Argum. 2.

If the members of the Catholic church be bound to join into particular Societies, that they may partake of seals, &c. then the seals are not to be administered immediately to them, for then they should have the end without the means.

But they are bound to join in such Societies for that end, for otherwise there is no necessity of erecting any particular Churches in the world; and so all the glory of Christ in this respect should be laid in the dust, and these particular temples destroyed, and thus a door of liberty is opened to many to live loosely without the care and watch, and communion of any particular Church in the world.

Argum. 3.

If the seals are to be administered immediately to believers, or professing believers as such, then they may be administered privately to any one where-ever he be found; but that were very irregular and against the common doctrine of Protestant Divines, who give large testimony against private Baptism, or of the Lord's▪ supper, neither do we see any weight in the arguments of the Papists or Anabaptists alleged for the contrary.

Argum. 4.

Lest we seem to stand alone in this controversies, let the arguments produced by Didoclavius, and him that writes concerning Perth Assembly against private Baptisms, be considered, and it will be found that most of them do strongly conclude against administration thereof to any but Church-members.

Argum. 5.

The learned Author Mr. Ball in this his dispute against our Conclusion: yet in his Discourse let fall sund • y▪ things that confirm it; as when he describes the Catholic Church to be the Society of men professing the faith of Christ, divided into many particular Churches. Whence we argue, if the Catholic church existeth only in these particular Churches, the seals must only be given to them and the members thereof; also, That Baptism is a solemn admission into the Church of Christ, and must of necessity be administered in a particular Society: Whence three things will follow; First, that Baptism sometimes administered privately by the Apostles is not an ordinary pattern. Secondly, that Baptism is not to be administered to believers (as such) immediately, if of▪ necessity it must be administered in a particular Society. Thirdly, joining to some particular Society being an Ordinance of God of so great concernment; & if Baptism must be administered in it, why ought not, why may not such join to that Society? (at least as members for a time.) Also when he saith divers times, That men are made members of the Church by Baptism, (speaking of such Churches as choose Officers over them;) yea, that the Apostles constituted Chrches by Baptism, and the like, (which we shall note in the answer;) Now what do these argue but a yielding of the cause? for if the Apostles made members, and constituted Churches by Baptism, this was only sacramentally, and if so, then of necessity they must be really members of such Churches before Baptism.

Thus we have run through this large field of the Catholic and particular Church, which hath detained us longer then we intended; yet, to prevent mistakes from anything that have been said concerning the union, communion, and combination of the Churches; we shall add these two things.

1 We observe that the Scripture speaks of the Church, sometimes as One body, sometimes as many, and therefore called Churches; and hence our care is to preserve not only the distinction of Churches, (as many by particular combinations) but also their unity, as being one by spiritual relation.

2 Association of divers particular Churches we hold needful, as well as the combination of members into one; yet so as there be no schism of one from another, nor usurpation of one over another, that either one should deprive the rest of peace by schism; or many should deprive any one of its power by usurpation; hence a fraternal consociation we acknowledge; consociation we say, for mutual counsel and help, to prevent or remove sin and schism; yet fraternal only, to preserve each others power; consociation of Churches we would have cumulative, (not in words, but in deed) to strengthen the power of particular Churches, not privative, to take away any power which they had from the gift of Christ before.

For as on the one side it may seem strange that One Church offending should have no means of cure by the conceived power of many; so on the other side the danger may appear as great, and frequently falls out, that when many Churches are scandalous, one innocent Church may be hurt by the usurpation of all. And hence we see not, but that fraternal consociation is the best medicine to heal the wounds of both.

We utterly dislike such Independency as that which is maintained by contempt, or careless neglect of sister Churches; Faciunt favos & vespae, faciunt Ecclesias & Marcionitae, saith Ter • ullian.

We utterly dislike such dependency of Churches upon others, as is built upon usurpations and spoils of particular Churches.

Having thus largely digressed for the clearing of the foundation of the dispute in hand, we desire to be excused if we be the more brief in our answers to particulars, which now we shall attend unto as they lie in order.

CHAP. VI.

Reply.

THe seals are given unto the Church not only in ordinary, (as you say) but also in extraordinary dispensation, &c. And when you say, the dispensing of the seals is an ordinance given only for the edifying of the Church gathered, must it not be understood of extraordinary dispensation as well as of ordinary, &c. added these words [ordinary dispensation] were, to prevent the objection which you foresaw might be made from the Apostles practice and example, but so as they cut asunder the sinews of the consideration itself, and make it of no force.

Answ.

Before we come to the particulars of the Reply, it is needful to clear our meaning from this mistake about the word [ ordinary dispensation; ] which being rightly understood, it will appear that it no way cuts the sinews of the consideration as is objected. For whereas, first, you extend the opposite term, [ extraordinary dispensation ] to the whole general practice of the Apostles and Evangelists; and secondly, take it for granted, that their practice was not to baptize members of particular Churches: we neither intended the first, nor do we grant the second; as for the first, we acknowledge freely that the Apostles and Evangelists ordinarily and generally practiced according to common rules in this point of baptizing, as well as in other, and left their practice for our pattern, and therefore their ordinary practice in this thing we shall stick to; yet they having not only extraordinary power above Pastors and Teachers, but also having sometime an immediate call unto some acts and special guidance of the Spirit to warrant what they did, therefore there were some of their actions, especially in respect of some circumstances thereof, which ordinary Pastors (not so assisted) may not do; as in this case when they baptized in private houses, in the wilderness alone, and not in the face of a Congregation, &c. and therefore if in some few cases some do think they did not baptize into a particular Church; yet if their ordinary practice were otherwise, we ought to imitate the ordinary, not some extraordinary cases; and thus the sinews and force of the consideration remains strong, notwithstanding this word of [ ordinary dispensation: ] and that this was our meaning, was not hard to discern, by the Scriptures cited in the answer, to prove the seals are given unto the Church in ordinary dispensation, amongst which, Acts 2. 41, 42, 47. containing the Apostles first practice in this kind are expressed; and Mr. Ball took notice thereof, as appears by his own reference to the same afterwards, though in his printed Reply those quotations be wholly left out:

2 Let us consider whether the Apostles ordinarily did not baptize into particular Churches; and this may be proved from the stories of their ordinary practice: First, it will be easily granted that the Apostles did gather disciples into particular visible Churches, but there is no other time or season of doing it can be shown in all the stories of their Acts; yea, sometimes they were so suddenly called away, or enforced away by persecution after they had converted disciples, that it is very improbable, if not impossible, they should do it at all, but when they converted and baptized them, as Acts 16, 40. & 17. 5. &c.

But to come more particularly unto the story itself, the Apostles first, and exemplary practi •• being the best interpreter of their commission, and of their ordinary proceeding therein; the first converts which the Apostles baptized after the visible kingdom of Christ was set up▪ were those in that famous place, Acts 2. 41. concerning whom observe, first; that the Apostle Peter not only preached unto them repentance and faith in the name of Christ, with promise of remission of sins, and that they should be baptized, but according to that commission, Mat. 28. with many other words he exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation, being the very scope of his exhortation; and this implies a gathering of themselves to the fellowship of the saints; and all this Word they gladly received before they were baptized.

2 When the holy Ghost, verse. 41. declareth their baptizing, he records withal their adding to them, the latter being an exegesis of the former, and that the same day, as being performed at the same time; and indeed when a convert publicly professeth his faith in Christ, is it not as easily done, to receive▪ him to a particular visible Church, as into the Catholic before Baptism; but first to baptize them, and then the same day to add or join them to the Church, is altogether unprobable. And that this adding was to a particular Church, is sufficiently proved before.

The next place you may note, is Acts 5. 14. where the Holy Ghost omitting the baptizing of those believers, yet speaks of their adding to the Lord, as if the one implied, the other; and that their adding to the Lord, was by their joining to the Church, is evident by the opposition between verse 13 & 14 Of the rest durst no man join himself to them, but believers were the more added to the Lord.

3 In the conversion of Samaria, although so great a work is declared in so few words in one verse, Act. 8, 12. yet the text puts a manifest distinction of Philip's doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ: which plainly enough showeth, that they taught the observing of the order of the Kingdom of Christ, as well as the Doctrine of the name of Christ, the object of saving faith. And this they received by faith, and professed before they were baptized.

Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles persuading that so they practiced, why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing, is said that contradicteth the same? as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house, where so many were met, and the Holy Ghost fell on all; why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them, and left them out of the order of Christ, wherein they should worship him, and be edified in the faith? If we doubt of it, because the Scripture is silent therein, we may as well question whether those believers, Acts 4. 4. & 9. 35. & verse. 42. whether any of these confessed their faith, or were baptized, for nothing is said thereof: So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many believing, turning to the Lord, verse. 21. of the adding others to the Lord, verse. 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism, and yet they are called a Church; whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joining to the Church; and sometimes joining without baptism, and sometime he expresseth both, Acts 2. 41. And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jailor; considering the former practice of the Apostles: and that the Apostle speaks so expressly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel, Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families; at least, they were the most eminent fruits of Paul's Ministry at that time; and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house, seeing Paul going out of prison to her house, he is said to see the Brethren, and comfort them, so departing, verse 40. Besides; why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case, as well as into the Catholic, or all Churches, as some say, they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his, with reference to that Church he had there constituted? The fullness of power in the Apostles might do greater matters without breach of order, though no rule for us so to do; neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family, seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three several families, Rom. 16. 5. Col. 4. 15. Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godliness of those families; yet i • we consider; First, how many eminent Saints the Apostle salutes, (who no doubt • ad godly families) not so much as naming their households; much less giving them such a title, but only to these three named. Secondly, how distinct his salutations are, first the Governors, and then the Church in their house. Thirdly, that the Apostle doth not only send his salutations to the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 16. 5. but also keeping the name of a Church, he sends salutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 16. 19. All which do strongly argue there is more in it, then that they were godly families, and therefore may persuade us that there were indeed constituted Churches in those Families, though other Christians also might join with them.

Thus having cleared our meaning, and the consideration itself, there will remain very few extraordinary cases, (if any) of whom it can be proved, they were not joined to some particular Church when baptized; as that of the Eunuch, which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip so to do; so also there was a special reason thereof, the Lord intending thereby, rather by him to send the Gospel into Ethiopia, then to retain him in any other place, to join with his Church: And the Baptism of Paul, who as without the Ministry of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Christ, so he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias so to do. Now let us proceed to consider what further is replied.

Reply.

The seals Baptism and the Lord's-supper are given to the Church, not only in ordinary, but also extraordinary dispensation: True Baptism is not without the Church, but in it, an ordinance given to it. The Sacraments are the seals of the Covenant to the faithful, which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our spiritual admittance into the Lord's family. Hence it is inferred, that if the seals in extraordinary dispensation were given to the Church, and yet to members of no particular Church, then also in ordinary dispensation it may be so.

Answ.

1 It will not follow; for first, if the Apostle in extraordinary cases baptized privately, will it follow that in ordinary dispensation it may be so? Secondly, if because the Ministry be given to the Church, and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches; will it therefore follow that in ordinary dispensations, Ministers ought not to be given only to particular churches? Thirdly, as we have oft said, that seals belong de jure to all believers, as such, as members of the Catholic church, (they being given unto it firstly, as to its object and end) and all that are truly baptized, are baptized into it, and thus never out of it, as being tokens of our spiritual admittance into the Lord's family both in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation; but doth it hence follow that actual fruition of the seals (of which the question is stated) may ordinarily be had or given to such as set loose from all societies? the Apostles had extraordinary power, being general Pastors over all persons believing as well as Churches; and therefore at sometimes by special guidance of the Spirit they might do that which ordinary Pastors may not do.

Reply.

Secondly, as the seals, so the Word of salvation preached and received, is a privilege of the Church, &c. If by preaching be meant the giving of the Word unto a people, to abide and continue with them, and consequently the receiving of it at least in profession, then it is proper to the church of God.

Answ▪

We grant, (in some sense) it is a privilege, and proper to the Church so to have the Word; but this no way takes away the difference between the Seals and the Word, which the answer makes, viz That the Word is not such a peculiar privilege of the Church as the Seals, in that the one is dispensed not only to the Church, but also to others for the gathering of them, which is not so in the Seals, for the Word of God received in Corinth abiding with them, professed of them, was not so peculiar, but an Idiot coming in might partake in the same, but not so in the Sacraments, 1 Cor. 14.

Reply.

The Word makes Disciples, the Word given unto a people is God's covenanting with them, and the people's receiving this Word, and professing their faith in God through Jesus Christ, is the taking of God to be their God, the laws and statutes which God gave unto Israel, were a testimony that God hath separated them from all other people: the Word of reconciliation is sent and given to the world reconciled in Jesus Christ, and they that receive the Doctrine, Law, or Word of God, are the disciples, servants, and people of God.

Answ.

In these words, and that which follows in the second Paragraph, there seems to be a double scope: First, to prove the Word proper to the Church; to which is answered afore. Secondly, that where-ever the Word of God is, there is the true visible Church; and so where the true Worship of God is, there is a mark of the Church, especially where it is received and confessed. To which we answer:

1 There is a covenanting between God and man, which is personal, and so whosoever receives the Word of God's grace by faith sent unto him by God, enters into Covenant to be his, and that before he makes any visible profession thereof, and so every believer is a disciple, a servant of God, and one of God's people, but many thousands of these considered only in this their personal relation to God, do not make a visible Church, many such might be in the world, but no members of the visible Church, until they came and joined to the Church of Israel of Old, or to the visible Churches in the New Testament.

2 There is a social or common covenanting between God and a people, to be a God to them, and they a people unto God in outward visible profession of his Worship; and so the Lord took Abraham and his seed into Covenant, and renewed that Covenant with them, as an holy Nation and peculiar people to him; and in this covenanting of God with a people, whereby they become a Church, there is required, first, that they be many, not one. Secondly, that these many become one body, one people. Thirdly, that they make visible profession of their Covenant with God really, or vocally. Fourthly, that this Covenant contain a profession of subjection to the ordinances of God's Worship, wherein God requires a Church to walk together before him: and all these may be seen in the Church of Israel, who received God's laws indeed, but so as they became one people to God, visibly avouched God for their God, received and submitted unto all the laws of his Worship, Government, and other Ordinances. And this is expressly or implicitly in every true visible Church, though more or less fully and purely.

Now if you intend such a covenanting of a people with God, by a professed receiving of his Word, and subjection to his Ordinances; we grant such to be true Churches, and to such the seals do belong; and therefore we willingly close with the Conclusion that follows, They that have received the Word of salvation entirely, and have Pastors godly and faithful to feed and guide them, they and their seed have right to the seals in order. And they that join together in the true Worship of God, according to his will, with godly and faithful Pastors, they have right to the sacraments, according to Divine institution. These conclusions we willingly embrace, and infer, that if the seals belong to such a Church, then to particular Congregations. For where shall we find a people joining together with godly Pastors, but in such particular Assemblies? For we doubt not our Brethren do disclaim all Diocesan Pastors or Provincial, &c.

Reply.

That there is now no visible Catholic Church in your sense, will easily be granted, &c.

If this be granted in our sense, so that there be no such Catholic church wherein seals are to be dispensed; then it will fall to be the right and privilege of particular Congregations, to have the seals in the administration proper to them; and so the cause is yielded; but because there is so much here spoken of the Catholic visible Church, and so much urged from it, we shall refer the Reader to what is said before, only one thing we shall note about the instance of Athanasius, that a man may be a member of the Catholic visible Church, but of no particular Society.

Reply.

You say it is evidenced, in that a Christian (as Athanasius for an example) may be cut off unjustly from the particular visible Church, wherein he was born, and yet remains a member of the Catholic visible orthodox Church.

Answ.

This case proves nothing; for look how such a Christian stands to the Catholic, so he stands to the particular Church: if he be unjustly censured, as he remains before God a member of the Catholic, so also the particular Church, for clavis errans non ligat: and in respect of men, and communion with other Churches in the seals, if they receive him, being satisfied that he is unjustly cast out; they may receive him, not for his general interest in the Catholic church, but in respect of his true membership in the particular Church, that unjustly cast him out: Whereas, if the Churches were not persuaded but that he were justly cast out of the particular, they ought not to admit him to seals, were he as Orthodox as Athanasius himself in doctrine, and as holy in his life.

Reply.

Though there be no universal Congregation, nor can be imagined, yet there are and have been many visible Assemblies or Societies, true Churches of Christ, to whom the prerogative of the seals is given, which have not been united and knit together into one Congregation or Society in Church-order. For every Society in Covenant with God, is the true Church of God. For what is it to be the flock, people, or sheep of God, but to be the Church of God? and where there is a Covenant, there is the people of God, &c.

Answ.

This assertion seems to us very strange to fall from that reverend and learned Author, being a foundation of many inconveniences and absurdities, and tending to overthrow the order of Christ in his visible Churches▪ For,

First, if this be so, that every Society in Covenant with God, be the Church of God, then men may set up as many Forms of visible Churches as they please, (if the people be in Covenant with God visibly at least) the Archdeacon with his Commissary, Priests, Churchwardens, &c. being in Covenant with God, are a true Church: So the Diocesan Bishop in his Cathedral with his Clergy, or any such Assembly, are the Church of God; or what other form-soever men will devise, may go for the Church of God, and to them belong the seals, and (you may as well say) discipline, and all Ordinances of God, if they be the true Church.

Secondly, upon this ground every company of godly Christistians in Covenant with God, meeting in fasting, prayer, &c. are the true Church of God, and to them (as such) the seals belong, and sending for a true Minister of the Catholic church, they may have Baptism and the Lord's-supper administered, and by the same reason discipline also: yea, if but two or three (as you say) being in Covenant with God, meet together in their travail at an Inn, &c. are the Church of God, especially every Christian family is the Church; for they profess the entire faith, join (daily) in prayer and thanksgiving, receive the truth of God to dwell amongst them, are in some measure obedient unto the commands of God, and in Covenant with God:

And therefore being the Church of God, why not call for a Minister, and have seals ordinarily dispensed to them?

Thirdly, upon this ground a company of Christian Women in Covenant with God are a Church, to whom the seals belong; and who sees not, how all orderly dispensation of God's Ordinances, and the whole order of visible Churches in the Gospel would be overturned by this assertion? We verily believe this Author was far from admitting these things, but the Position itself will unavoidably enforce the same. Neither can we impute this assertion to any inconsiderateness through heat of disputation. For if any shall maintain the personal Covenant of people with God to be sufficient to constitute visible Churches, and not admit a necessity of a more public or general Covenant explicit or implicit, whereby a company of Christians are made one people, joining in one Congregation to worship God in his holy Ordinances, and walk together in his ways, they must of necessity acknowledge every Society in Covenant with God to be a Church, as here is said; and therefore admit all forms of Churches, and all Families, &c. to be Churches, and so bring in the confusion objected, which we desire may well be considered.

All your Arguments stand upon that ground of personal covenant with God, which is too weak to bear up that conclusion, to make all such visible Churches to whom the seals belong, as the absurd consequences thereof show.

These Reasons, and the Scriptures in the margent (some of them) will prove them fit matter for visible Churches, and that they have a remote right unto the seals of that Covenant, (which we grant) but they will not prove every Society of such to be true Churches, having immediate right to have the seals dispensed unto them.

Reply.

Fifthly, If it be granted that the seals are the prerogative of particular visible Churches, known and approved Christians amongst us are members of such Churches, and so to be esteemed amongst you, &c. and every visible believer professing the pure entire faith, admitted to the right and lawful participation of the sacraments, is a visible member of the true Church, if he hath neither renounced the Society, nor deserved justly to be cast out by excommunication, or Church censure, &c. And if known and approved Christians, members of our Churches coming to New-England, shall desire to have their children baptized, or themselves admitted to the Lord's-supper, before they be set members amongst you; we desire to know upon what grounds from God you can deny them, if you acknowledge our Churches, Ministry and Sacraments to be true, (as you profess) and the members of the Church be known and approved, orderly recommended unto you.

Answ▪

We grant all this here expressed for the substance, however some reasons spoken unto before intermixed we pass over, and to your question we frame a ready answer from your own words. For, first, you grant, that if such members have renounced that Society wherein they did partake of the seals, they are not to be reputed members of it; and this is generally the case of all approved Christians among us, who though they do not so renounce the Churches that bare them, and gave them suck, as no true Churches; yet seeing they were grown so corrupt many ways, as they could neither enjoy some needful Ordinances, nor partake in those they had without sin, they have therefore renounced and forsaken all further communion with them, and membership in them; and so by your own grant, neither themselves, nor the Churches here can take them as members of your Churches, to receive them under that respect.

Secondly, if any yet have not so far renounced those Churches they belonged unto, yet they are not orderly recommended unto us, which also you grant ought to be, and indeed otherwise we may oft receive persons justly excommunicate, or such as are no members of Churches anywhere, or otherwise under great offense, as frequent examples amongst ourselves do show, though the Church may think well of such as offer themselves. What else follows in this Paragraph, is the same in substance, and much of it in words also, that we have answered before; and therefore we pass it over; and that of the Jewish Church we shall speak to after. As for that you desire leave to set down, and us to examine what may be objected against that we affirmed, That the distinct Churches named in the New Testament were Congregational Societies; we shall consider as followeth:

Reply.

The number of believers were so great in some Cities, that they could not conveniently meet in one place as one Assembly to worship God according to his will, and for their edifying, as in Samaria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus.

Answ.

Although we expected not Objections in this case against the currant Tenent of our godly Reformers, Baine, Parker, &c. with whom we join; and we might refer you to them for answer to this beaten Objection of the Prelates; yet we are not unwilling to examine what is said in this digression. The Argument stands thus: If the number of believers were so great in some City, as could not meet in one Assembly to edification; then there was some other form of a Church besides Congregational; But so it was in Samaria, &c▪ Answ. We deny the consequences, for when they grew to so great a number, they might fall into more Congregational Churches, and so no other form arise from the multitude; but we suppose you mean of such a multitude as is called a Church; and therefore to answer to your Assumption, we deny that any such multitude of believers as is here called a Church were so great as could not meet to edification: And first concerning Samaria.

Reply.

That there was a Church gathered in Samaria, will not be denied, for they received the Word, and were baptized; but that the Church in that City was only a Congregational Assembly, is more then can probably be concluded.

Answ.

We grant a Church or Churches were gathered in Samaria▪ and we accept your reason as good, because they received the Word, and were baptized, where (by the way) you grant what we pleaded for before, That the Apostles gathered Churches, when they baptized them: but that there was but one Congregational Assembly, lies not in us to prove, until you prove that all the believers were called a Church, or one Church, which doth not appear in the whole story, Acts 8. nor any other where that we can find; and it is very probable that as Philip converted and baptized so great a multitude at several times, and gathered them into the Church or Churches as he baptized them, so he might gather several Churches, as well as one, seeing that none doubt but that Congregational Churches are an ordinance of Christ, what ever men contend for beside. And therefore be the number of believers in Samaria as great as you would have it, it proves nothing.

Reply.

The Church at Jerusalem was one, and distinct, yet increased to 3000, then to 5000, &c.

Answ.

Be it so, the increase was very great; yet so long as they are called one distinct Church, it was one Congregation, viz. until they scattering by the persecution about Stephen, Acts 7. 8. which is evident by these two arguments. First, Acts 2 41, &c. where we see the 3000 added to the 120. they have their communion together described: 1 In regard of their spiritual communion, to be in the Apostles doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread and Prayer, verse 42. Secondly, in regard of their outward communion in the good things of this life; they bad all things common, and sold their possessions, &c. verse 44, & 45: Now the manner of both parts of this communion in respect of time and place is described, verse 46. viz. in their spiritual duties; They continued daily with one accord in the Temple. And secondly, in respect of their outward communion in their States, They eat their meat from house to house; this latter requiring many tables and many houses to provide for them; so that although in their outward communion, it was in private houses, yet their spiritual communion it was with one accord in one place, viz. the Temple, where they had room enough; being the place erected for a National Church; and having favor with all the people, were not interrupted therein by any persecution. We need not step out of our way to reply to all that is said against this reason. It is enough for us to note, that they daily with one accord met, and that in the Temple, which is not answered by any 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

2 This appeareth, Acts 6. 1, 5. where it is evident the election of Deacons was before, and by the multitude, verse 1. by the whole multitude, verse 5. and this was the last Church-meeting and Church-act we read of before their scattering; neither can it appear that the Jews and Grecians, whose Widows murmured were two distinct Congregations; but the contrary is evident, in that the Deacons were chosen all by the whole, and for the whole, not distinctly so many for this, and so many for that Church, as it was needful if they were two Churches. These proofs being so clear, the inconveniences objected are of no force, and sufficiently answered by many examples of as great Assemblies meeting ordinarily to edification; as beside the Auditory of Chrysostom, cited by others; the Assemblies of Stepney in London, Y • rmouth in Norfolk, and others in our experience. Beza, a man not loving to hyperbolize, saith, that being in Paris, there met at a Sermon 24000. And of a Synodal Assembly that they received the Lord's-supper no less then 10000. Beza Epist. 65.

Reply.

Without question the number of believers at Antioch was not small, of which it is expressly said, That a great number believed, and that a great multitude were added to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas, &c. and therefore we may think the Church rose to such a bigness as could not well assemble in one Congregation, Acts 11. 21. & 14. 27.

Answ.

1 In that place, Acts 11. 21. the great number that believed, was the fruit of all the scattered Christians at Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch; for the hand of the Lord was with them all, and their whole success is summed up together, nothing said before of the other places.

2 Though Paul and Barnabas taught much people, yet it proveth not that this much people were converted to the Church.

3 Though much people were added to the Lord, yet doth it follow they were more then could meet in one Congregation? and if first Disciples were there called Christians, must it needs be for their number, and not rather for eminent likeness to Christ, with other specialities of providence?

4 It is expressly said, the Church was gathered together, Acts 14. 27. which is not meant of the Elders only, as if they only could meet; for Chap. 15. 30. They gathered the multitude together; so that it was not such a number but might meet together in one place.

Reply.

The number of believers was great at Ephesus, where Paul preached two years; all that dwelt in Asia heard the Word; a great door and effectual ways open to him, where the Shrines of Diana her Temple were in danger to be set at naught; where those that used curious arts, burnt their books openly: which could not be done without great danger of the Church, unless a great part of the City had believed, Acts 19. 10, 19, 27.

Answ.

1 Be it so, that many were converted, and the Word grew mightily; this proves not that all who heard Paul, were of the Church of Ephesus, for then all Asia should be of that Church, ( Acts 19. 10.) who did hear the Word both Jews and Gentiles; As for the danger of the Shrines, and Diana 's Temple to be set at naught, a little spark might kindle such fears, and raise such outcries in the covetous Craftsmen, by whom the whole City was set in a superstitious uproar; our own experience may teach, how soon a profane people will cry out against a faithful Minister before he hath converted ten men in a City.

2 That they could not burn their books openly without danger to the Churches, except a great part of the City believed, seems a strange reason: as if believers durst not profess openly, except they had a great number to maintain them with club-law: open profession in those times even amongst a few, was not wont to be daunted with the grim looks of persecution.

3 And lastly, we grant Ephesus might be a numerous Church; yet neither there, nor anything that is said from Rev. 2. 7. ( Hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches ) can persuade us that it was anymore then one Congregation; for that argues no more, that Ephesus was a compound of many Churches, then that it was compounded with all the other six Churches of Asia; yea, the Churches of all the world: for what the Spirit speaketh to one Church, is spoken for the use of all.

Reply.

It is not essential to the Church to meet together in one place ordinarily, nor is the Society broken off by persecution, when their meeting together in one place be interrupted.

Answ.

It is true; one Church or Society by persecution or otherwise, may meet in several companies; neither do we say, that place, or meeting in one place, is properly essential to the Church, yet it is necessary both necessitate praecepti & medii, to be able at least so to do: for though it be not necessary to the unity of the Society thus to meet together, yet it is necessary to the communion thereof in all Ordinances. It is not necessary to the unity of a Classical Presbytery to meet ordinarily in one place, but unto the communion thereof it is necessary. When the Papists to maintain their private Masses, say, That place is but accidental to the ordinance: And that Christians are not bound to the circumstance of place (as Hardin objects) anymore, then to observe days, months, times, condemned as beggarly Elements by the Apostle, Gal. 4. As also, that all the faithful are united together by the Sacrament, though they meet not in the same place, as the Ancients note: How doth learned Chamier answer them? he tells them, That although this or that particular place is not necessary, yet a place indefinitely taken is: And that the Sacrament is restrained to be administered in a place, because it cannot be administered but conventu fidelium; and this conventus must be in some place: And he adds, That although all the faithful have communion in the Sacrament, though they meet not in one and the same place; yet this (he saith) is to be understood of spiritual, not sacramental communion; Nunquam enim auditum, qui Hierosolymis erant, sacramentaliter communicasse cum iis qui Alexandriae: and therefore he thought communion in one place together necessary to Church-communion, as we do.

Reply.

Seventhly, Seeing then both the seals in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation, &c.

Answ.

This, with that which follows, being but a recapitulation of the several Replies made, we shall leave it to the judicious, having well observed our answer, to embrace or reject the Conclusion.

CHAP. VII. Consid. 2.

Reply To the second Consideration of the Answer.

THe Proposition is granted, That the dispensation of the Sacraments both ordinary and extraordinary, is limited to the Ministry; but in that you allege for confirmation some things may be noted: 1 The first institution of Baptism is not contained in that passage, but confirmed, for the seals were instituted before his death, &c.

Answ.

The Proposition being granted, and the proof Mat. 28. 19. being (we doubt not) pertinent in the Authors own judgment, as well as ours; Brotherly love might easily have passed over greater mistakes then the answer seems to have fallen into: for, by First institution here, we meant no more, then that it is the ordinance of Christ himself, instituted in that first time of all Divine ordinances. We were not so ignorant to think there was no use, and so no institution of Baptism before the death of Christ; and therefore this confutation might have been spared.

Reply.

Secondly, We see not how you can apply that Text, Matth. 28 19. to preaching by Office; which by your exposition is a dispensing of a fit portion to everyone of the household; and it is plain the Apostles were sent to preach to every creature, &c.

Answ.

As if that commission, Matth. 28. did not authorize them also, and require them to dispense fit portions to the Churches: did not the care of all the Churches lie on the Apostle, 2 Cor. 11. 28. so also 1 Cor. 7. 17. were not Apostles given to the Church for the edifying of the body of Christ, &c. as well as other Officers? Ephes. 4. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. and therefore this note also might well have been spared.

Reply.

Thirdly, If under the power of the Keys you comprehend preaching by Office, dispensing seals, &c. we deny the power of the Keys to belong to the Church, or community of the faithful, in those passages which speak of this power, the execution of this authority is given to them to whom the authority is committed.

Answ.

This of the power of the Keys, and the execution thereof, was only in the Answer touched by the way, to prevent the objection of some.

1 It is well known that it is no new opinion to hold, that the Church is the first subject of the Keys, and to allege Matth. 16. & 18. for the same, and therefore might as well have been set in the margent; many ancient Divines, and our own Modern, as Fulke, Whittaker, Baine, Parker, and others, as Robinson, if there were not a desire to possess people with that conceit, that we go in new ways with the Separatists alone.

2 We distinguish between power and authority: there is a power, right, or privilege, as Joh. 1. 12. which is not authority properly so called; the first is in the whole Church, by which they have right to choose Officers, Acts 6. & 14. receiving members, &c. Authority (properly so called) we ascribe only to the Officers under Christ to rule and govern, whom the Church must obey. Now we grant that where authority is given, there power to exercise it is given also, as Mat. 28. Joh. 20. &c. it is given to the Apostles and Ministers; and so where power is given to the Church, there power to exercise the same orderly is given also, as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2. 10.

Reply.

If the power of the Keys be given to the Church, the Apostles themselves must derive their authority immediately from the Church, and not from Christ; for the power must be derived from them unto whom it was given, &c.

Answ.

We deny your consequence, for the Lord may give power to his Church in all ordinary cases, and yet reserve to himself that prerogative to do what he please immediately without the Church, as is clear, that in this case he hath, first calling his twelve Apostles, Mat. 10. before he instituted the Church of the New Testament, after he was pleased to use the Ministry of the Church, Acts 1. to choose two, and take one of them immediately by a lot; and when Paul was called he appeared to him immediately, and called him both to the faith, and to his Apostleship, whereby it is clear that their call is a reserved case.

Reply.

If Ministers dispense the seals as the stewards of Christ, from whom they receive their authority immediately; then the power of the Keys is not in the community of the faithful; if as the servants of the Church, from which they derive their authority; then the Office of a Minister is not the immediate gift of Christ; nor the Minister so much the servant of Christ, as of the Church from whom he must receive Laws, in whose names he must do his Office, and to whom he must give account.

Answ.

This Objection will hold as strongly against any other subject of the Keys that can be named, (as Classes, Synods, or Church Catholic) and therefore by this manner of reasoning the Lord Jesus must do all things immediately himself in choosing Officers, &c. or else his Ministers must receive Laws, do all in the name of such as he delegates to that work of administration under him, and therefore let others look to answer this Objection as well as we: Our answer is briefly & plainly this, the Office is the immediate institution of Christ, the gifts and power belonging thereto are from Christ immediately, and therefore he ministers in his name, and must give account to him, 1 Pet. 5. and yet his outward cal to this Office, whereby he hath authority to administer the holy things of Christ to the church, is from Christ by his Church, and this makes him no more the servant of the Church, then a Captain (by the leave of the General) chosen by the Band of Soldiers is the servant of his Band. We see in this reply here and elsewhere how apt men are to cast this odium upon this Doctrine, and to rank us with Separatists in it, but it is easily wiped off and sticks as fast upon the Classes, Synods, Catholic Church, or any other subject of this power.

Reply.

If the community of the faithful have to do in all matters of the body, to admit members cast out, make and depose Ministers, &c. by authority from Christ, we cannot see how in your judgment the execution of the power of the Keys is concredited to the Ministers.

Answ.

If the power, privilege and liberty of the people be rightly distinguished from the authority of the officers as it ought, a dim sight may easily perceive how the execution of the Keys by the officers authoritatively may stand with the liberties of the people in their place obedientially following and concurring with their guides, so long as they go along with Christ their King and his Laws, and cleaving in their obedience to Christ dissenting from their guides, when they forsake Christ in their ministrations; if there need an ocular demonstration hereof, it is at hand in all civil administrations wherein the execution of Laws and of justice in the hands of the Judges and the privilege power or liberty of the people in the hands of the Jurours. Both sweetly concur in every case both civil & criminal; neither is the use of a Jury only to find the fact done, or not done, (as some answer this instance) but also the nature and degree of the fact in reference to the Law that awards answerable punishments; as whether the fact be simple theft, or burglary, murder or manslaughter, &c. and so in cases of damages, costs in civil cases; whereby it appears, that although the power and privilege of the people be great, yet the execution authoritatively may be wholly in the Officers.

Reply.

Fourthly, That which you add, that God will not vouchsafe his presence and blessing to an Ordinance but when it is dispensed by those whom he hath appointed thereunto, must be warily understood, or it may occasion errors and distractions not a few, &c.

Answ.

We shall not contradict your wariness in this case, for we acknowledge a presence of God with his Ordinances administered by such as he appoints, though some corruptions be admixed, in the entrance and administrations; but we doubt not the presence and blessing of God is more or less according to the purity or corruptions of the administration and participation of his Ordinances: but what need there was, or use of this note we see not, our words were sound, and safe enough, but it seems your tenderness of the standings of Ministers and Ordinances in England occasioned this wariness, and we deny not what you say, that God's presence, and blessing upon his ordinances dispensed by us gave some approbation to our standing and to his Ordinances, the Lord mercifully passing over our many corruptions: but this will no way give allowance to the many gross corruptions, and defects which cleaved to our standings, and administrations, nor to the continuance of any in such corruptions after the discovery thereof.

Reply.

Secondly, As for the assumption, that Pastors and Teachers are limited to a particular Church or society, but that flock is not ever one congregational assembly meeting in one place, neither the bond so straight, whereby they are tied to that one society that they may not upon occasion perform some ministerial act of office in another congregation, or to them that be not set members of their proper assembly.

Answ.

For clearing of the the assumption, that we may give the more distinct answer, we shall take leave to explicate ourselves concerning the limitation of the Ministry to the Church, which it is like they who drew up the answer had formerly done, had the times then been as critical as they are grown since.

1▪ When we say the Ministry is limited to a particular Church, we do not so limit it to a Congregation under her own Presbytery, as to exclude from communion in the seals, many Congregations standing under one common Presbytery, as we have formerly said, we honor the reformed Churches of Christ Jesus, and the godly members thereof.

2▪ When we say the seals are limited to a particular Church or Congregation because the Ministry is so limited; our meaning is not of that congregation only whereof the Ministry is, but of any Congregation in general.

3▪ When we say that where a Minister hath no power, he may not do an act of power, this is to be so understood, that he cannot perform such an act, as an Officer over them or unto them as to his proper flock, the office being (as we said) founded in the relation between the Church and the Officer, such a stated power as an Officer over his own flock, he hath not to those of other Congregations partaking in his own Church, or in any act of his Office in another Church; yet an occasional act of power, or precaria potestas, charitatively to put forth an act of his Office to those in another church, over whom he is no Officer, we see not but he may; but then this act of power is not towards them as over his own flock; for two things are clear to us. 1. That an Officer of one Church, is no Officer over those of another Church, as not being his proper flock, for there being no Office of Pastor at large without power of Office, and the power that a Pastor hath over others, being by the election of those that chose him their Officer, who thereby become his proper flock, hence he hath no power as an Officer over those of another flock, unless he should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

That such an officer may put forth acts of his office towards those that are not of his proper flock. E. g. A Minister ex officio, & as a Pastor, not barely as a gifted man only may preach for the gathering in of those that are out of the Church, as well as for the edificaon of those that are within, Ephe. 4. 11, 12. and yet these are not his proper flock; it is the office of every Pastor to preach the Gospel, the means of converting, and therefore not only to intend but to attend the conversion of men, (especially in preaching to his own Congregation) for Christ hath sheep, (which are his flock) to be gathered into his fold, which are not the Ministers proper flock, and the Pastor is the Minister of Christ, as well as the Pastor of his own flock, and therefore he is to intend their gathering in as well as the good of his own flock.

Again, as he hath the Keys of Office by preaching the Gospel, to open the Kingdom of heaven to believers, so also he may ex officio, shut it against impenitent sinners and unbelievers that reject his Doctrine, Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 10. 14. Jer. 1. 10. and yet these are not of his proper flock.

Again, a Pastor may administer the Seals, (which is an act of Office) to members of other Churches, in his his own Congregation, (if they desire it) who yet are not his proper Flock. Lastly, a Deacon of one Church may perform an act of his Office occasionally to those out of the Church, or the poor of another Church; yet be no Officer or Deacon of the other Church, and so 'tis here.

To illustrate this, A Captain of a Band of Soldiers is an Officer only over his own Band, but it's an act of his Office to subdue enemies, and to bring in those that submit. A Steward is an officer over his Masters family, not over others: yet it's an act of his Office to provide for the entertainment of Strangers that come to his Lord's table.

Thus far it is clear: But now whether a Minister may administer the Seals in another Congregation, is not so evident, yet we will not deny but that occasionally being called thereunto by the desire of the Church, he may lawfully do the same, yet it's no foundation of a stated Presbytery out of a particular Congregation, for in all such acts the Church still keeps her power in her own hands, while the Minister hath no authority, nor can put forth any act of his Ministry, but at her desire, and according to her own necessity, neither doth this make a Minister a Pastor of the universal Church, for pastoral Office consists in taking charge of a people, and having power of authority to exercise the same towards his Church: But all that is said doth include neither of these, nor doth it follow that because they may set up a Presbytery over themselves in the same Church, that therefore they may combine & set up a Presbytery of many Churches, the first being their duty enjoined by Christ, not the other; for it is necessary for them to have such amongst them as may ordinarily feed, teach, watch over them, and rule them (the end of a Ministers Office) but it's not necessary so to submit to others, who may find work enough to feed and rule their own, and therefore look as it is not in the power of many Congregations to join together, to set one Pastor over them successively to feed them, (for so they make a Pluralist, and the Bramble the King of trees) nor yet in their power to set up (as in the first ambitious time) a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with power over all singly, but under all jointly, so neither is it in their power to set up many Pastors, who by their plurality of votes may wholly drown that power of their own.

Nor lastly doth it follow, that if they may desire the benefit and exercise of an others Office occasionally, that they may or should do it constantly, no more then because they may desire sundry Ministers to preach amongst them every Sabbath for a time in the want of Officers, that therefore they should content themselves to live altogether without any of their own.

Now for application of these things to the assumption of our argument. Although a Pastor (in the sense explained) may put forth acts of Office in another Congregation, or to others in his own Congregation, yet will it hence follow, that a Minister may administer Seals to such as are of no Congregation? which is now the question.

Reply.

Now to remove those 2013 objections of Mr. Ball, which only reach the question in hand, whereof the first is Reply the 8. When ordinary Elders in the Primitive Church were to labor the coming of the Infidels to God, these being converted were to be baptized of the Elders ordinarily in the Cities, though the number might be so great as they could not well meet in one Congregation, nor be subject to the same Pastor: and therefore either the Pastors must Baptize them, being no members, or they must remain without Baptism till they grow into a body, and choose Ministers to Baptize them, which is contrary to all precedents in Scripture.

Answ.

There is a third way which is passed over, that will ease the difficulty: viz. the Pastors might baptize them unto their own Congregations so long as the numbers did not exceed beyond edification, and then dividing their numbers, might make divers Churches of one, and they call Pastors over them, and so we see Act. 2. they added 3000. and after more, till they were scattered: and when peace was restored, Act. 9. the Churches were not only edified but multiplied, Verse 3. and so the consequence of your 9. Reply is also taken away.

Reply.

There is no precept or example in Scripture warrants the admitting of set members of one Congregation to the Seals in another, more then the admitting of approved Christians that are not set members, The Pastor is no more the Pastor of the one then of the other, neither of them set members, and both of them may be members for the time being.

Answ.

We have before shown in the first consideration, that which warrants the dispensing of the Seals to confederating believers, as the way of the Gospel, and Rom. 16. 1. we have a plain example of orderly receiving the members of one Church to Communion in another, being recommended thereunto by the Apostles, we have not the like for any not in Church order at all; and though there be a parity in respect of particular relation with that Pastor and flock, yet that is a disparity in regard of immediate right that the one have to the ordinances of Christ and privileges of a Church, which the other have not, being out of that order of Christ prescribed in the Gospel, in which order of a visible Church, visible ordinances are to be dispensed, as hath been proved before.

Reply.

If a Synod consisting of sundry members of particular Churches, met together in the name of Christ about the common and public affairs of the Churches shall join together in prayer, and Communion of the Supper, we can see no ground to question it as unlawful, although that assembly be no particular Congregation or Church, hath no Pastor over them, &c.

Answ.

That su • h an assembly may pray together is no question, for every family may do so: and that they may receive the Supper also in a right order, we deny not, for meeting where there is a particular instituted Church, they may have Communion therewith in the Supper, being many as well as few, but whether they may as a Church (being no political body, but members of many Political Churches) administer Church ordinances proper to a Church, we would see some reasons before we can judge it lawful so to do: for though some do account such a Synod Ecclesia orta; yet not properly such a Church as hath Ecclesiastical power, authority and privilege belonging thereto: they may consult and doctrinally determine of cases of that assembly, Acts 15. but further to proceed, we see no rule, nor pattern. Besides, if such an assembly of many Churches may administer Seals, why may not any other assembly of Church members or Ministers do the sam • ? and so this power will be carried without limitation, we know not how far, if they once depart from a particular Church.

CHAP. VIII. Consid. 3.

Reply.

TO the third consideration, this whole reason as it is propounded makes only against it self; whoever thought that the Seals were not proper to confederates, or the Church of God; of old visible believers in the Covenant of grace were of the visible Church, and in Church order according to the dispensation of those times, though not joined to the society of Abraham's family: to exclude Job, Melchizedek, &c. because not of the visible Church, is well nigh a contradiction, and so to debar known approved Christians, &c.

Answ.

That this reason makes not against itself, Mr. Ball himself hath cleared, when he stated our consideration truly in the words following, as will appear, however here he somewhat troubles the waters needlessly, that the ground may not appear, for there is nothing in our answer which deny Melchizedek, Job, &c. to be of the visible Church according to the manner of those times, indeed we instance in them as persons under the covenant of grace, not mentioning their membership in family Churches, as being enough for our purpose, if they had not right to Circumcision by virtue of their right in the covenant of grace, except they joined to the Church at first in Abraham's family, and so after to the same Church in Israel; and the more special Church relation in Abraham's family was required to Circumcision, the stronger is the force of our reason, not the weaker. For so much the rather it follows, that seals are not to be dispensed to believers (as such) though visibly professing the faith, except they join also to such a form of the visible Church, to, or in which the seals are instituted and given.

Reply.

The true and proper meaning of this consideration is, that as Circumcision, and the Passover were not to be dispensed to all visible believers under the Covenant of grace, but only to such as were joined to Abraham's family, or the people of the God of Abraham, no more may Baptism, and the Lord's Supper be administered now to any believers, unless they be joined to some particular Congregation.

Answ.

These words rightly stating the consideration we leave it to any indifferent reader to judge, whether any way it make against it self, or whether there was any cause first to darken it as was done in the former passage.

Reply.

The strength of it stands in the parity between Circumcision and Baptism, but this parity is not found in everything, as yourselves allege. To unfold it more fully, we will consider three things. First, wherein the Sacraments agree, and wherein they differ.

Answ.

It matters not in how many things the Sacraments differ, so they agree in the thing questioned, and though we might raise Disputes and Queries about some particulars in this large discourse upon this first head, yet seeing here is a grant of the parity in the point now questioned, viz. Concerning the persons to whom Circumcision and Baptism do belong, we shall take what is granted, and leave the rest. For thus it is said, Circumcision and Baptism are both Sacraments of Divine institution, and so they agree in substance of the things signified, the persons to whom they are to be administered, and the order of administration, if the right proportion be observed. Now that we •• ld the right proportion in the persons, may appear,

First, in that (as was granted) Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant, but this Covenant was not simply, and only the Covenant of grace; but that whole Covenant, that was made with Abraham, whereby on God's part they were assured of many special blessings, (whereof Lot, and others not in this Covenant with Abraham, were not capable) and whereby Abraham his seed, and family were bound for their part to be a people to God, and to observe this sign of the Covenant, which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to.

Answ.

Secondly, (as is granted) it was Abraham, and his household, and the seed of believing Jews that were the persons to be Circumcised, and therefore not visible believers, (as such) for then Lot had been included: so by right proportion not all visible believers as such, but such as with Abraham, and his family are in visible Covenant to be the people of God according to the institution of Churches when, and to which the seal of Baptism is given; and therefore as all family Churches but Abraham's being in a new form of a Church were excluded, so much more such as are in no visible constituted Church at all.

Reply.

Secondly, As for the proposition it self, certain it is, Circumcision and the Passover were to be administered only to the visible members of the Church, i. e. to men in Covenant professing the true faith, but that in Abraham's time none were members of the visible Church, which joined not to Abraham's family, we have not learned.

Answ.

The proposition we see is granted, yet it is obscured divers ways, to which we answer: First, whereas it is said these members of the Church were men in Covenant, professing the true faith. True, but where? not in any place, but in the Church of Abraham's family, and so after in the Church of Israel. Secondly, what faith? not only faith in the Messiah for life, and salvation, but withal faith in the promises made to Abraham, and his seed with subjection to the visible worship of God in that Church, and to circumcision in particular. Thirdly, that there were no others of the visible Church besides Abraham's family, is not said, but being so it strengthens the argument, as was shown before.

Reply.

In the first institution of Circumcision God gave it to Abraham, as the seal of the Covenant formerly made with him, but of any Church Covenant, whereinto Abraham's family should enter, we read not.

Answ.

Whether Circumcision sealed any new Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. or that before, Gen. 15. we will not contend, neither is it material, be it the same covenant he entered into before for substance, yet it is evident, 1 That this covenant was no • simply and only the covenant of grace, but had many peculiar blessings belonging to Abraham, and his posterity, and family contained in it. Gen. 12. and 15. 2 It is very considerable that God made this Covenant with Abraham, when he called him out of that corrupt state of the Church in Ebers family to worship God more purely according to his institutions, Gen. 12. 1. with Josh. 24. 2. Thirdly, this covenant, Gen. 17. is more explicate, and full then before, and especially in that promise, which most properly concerns Church covenant, viz. that God would take Abraham and his seed into covenant with himself, even an everlasting covenant to be a God unto them, Vers. 7. and this in a special manner▪ is that, which the Lord saith he would now establish between Abraham and himself, viz. by this sign of the covenant, Vers. 9, 10, 11. Fourthly, this is the very covenant, which the Lord renewed with Abraham's seed afterward, when he established them to be a Church or people to himself, as is evident, Deut. 29. 12, 13. this the Lord is said oft to remember, viz. to remember his covenant with Abraham, when he visited his seed with any mercy: Exod. 6. 5, 6, 7, 8. Psal. 105. 8, 9. and therefore it must needs be a Church covenant. Fifthly, as Gen. 17. the Lord instituted a visible token, and seal of this covenant, so he strictly enjoined the observation of the same in all the seed and family of Abraham, and that in all their generations: all which things especially jointly considered make it evident, that Abraham and his were not only a people, but established a people to God in a Church covenant, and that the same covenant, which was the foundation of the national Church of God, that was after in his posterity, and to this covenant the seal of Circumcision was added.

Reply.

Melchizedek, Lot, Job might be circumcised, though we read not of it, (as we read not that John the Baptist, or the Apostles were baptized) or if they were not circumcised, it may be that institution was not known to them, or they were not required to join to Abraham's family, and if they had, they should have transgressed, and so the reason was not, because they were not in Church order, but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abraham's family in some peculiar respects.

Answ.

Though we read not of the administration of Baptism to John Baptist, the Apostles, and many others, yet we read of a rule that required it of them, and it was a part of that righteousness, of which the Lord Jesus saith to John, Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness, Matth. 3. 15. not for the institution of Circumcision did bind Lot, Job, &c. yet that they were forbidden to join to Abraham's family, and so be circumcised, we cannot say; seeing afterwards Proselytes were reecived into the same Covenant and Church, and so circumcised.

Secondly, that it was so appropriated to Abraham's family, as that it was unlawful for them to join to Abraham's covenant, and be circumcised, this is more then can be shown; or if Lot, Melchizedek, Job were excluded, yet out of question Abraham might and did enlarge his family, and so might take in proselytes visible believers in the covenant of grace, and circumcise them, and so still the appropriating of circumcision to the Church, and Covenant of Abraham's family, doth not weaken, but strengthen the argument, in as much as no visible believer in the Covenant of grace might partake of the seal but by joining in visible covenant with that Church to which it was given.

Thirdly, suppose Job, Lot, &c. and their families were circumcised, (as Junius alledgeth Jerome for it) yet how will it appear it was not by taking hold of the Covenant of Abraham, to which Circumcision was applied? yet it seems more probable, that Lot, and other families in Abraham's time were not partakers thereof, God intending (as the effect shows) not to establish them nor theirs to be his people, as by Circumcision he established Abraham and his seed; as for Job, if he were of Abraham's seed, and had Circumcision hereditarily à materno, paternoque sanguine, (as some think) yet this makes nothing against the argument we have now in hand.

Answ.

After the Church of the Jews was constituted (when we cannot imagine any Church amongst the Gentiles) we find none must be admitted to the Passover that was not circumcised, but nothing was required of a stranger, but that he profess the true faith, and avouch the God of Abraham to be his God, which must be done before he could be reputed a visible believer, or under the covenant of Grace.

Reply.

If any doubtfulness can be raised about the Church in Abraham's family, yet the case is so clear in the following story of the Church, as you must needs grant the proposition, (as you do) and the Church of the Jews is still but the same Church, that was in Abraham's house, and the covenant the same, for Gen. 17. God established the Covenant with him and his seed for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto them; and in Egypt the Lord challenges them as his own, his first borne, &c. and therefore there is the same reason of circumcision, first and last in respect of the Persons, that had right unto it, but say you nothing was required to circumcision, but to profess the faith. But we demand first, What was it to avouch the God of Abraham to be his God? Was it not to subject himself to all the Statutes, Commandments, and judgments of God in his Church to walk in them? as▪ is clear: Deut. 26. 17. Was there not the same Law for the stranger, and the home-borne? Secondly, Where must they profess this faith, and avouch this God? Was it in any place where they dwelt, and so might they circumcise themselves? must not this be done amongst, and before the people of God in his visible Church? whence such were called Proselytes, and reckoned of the Common-wealth of Israel, Isaiah 56. 3, 4, 5, 6. And is not all this to join themselves to the visible instituted Church before they were circumcised? Lastly, it is not true that no man could be reputed a visible believer before he did all this, That which follows pag. 40. is answered before.

Reply.

If Lot, Job, &c. were not circumcised, there is not the like reason for Circumcision, and baptism in this particular.

Answ.

The force of the consideration doth not depend upon the likeness of reason between the persons to be circumcised and baptized in every respect, but in this, that as Circumcision and the Passover were given only to visible members of that instituted visible Church, and therefore so in this case of baptism, and the Lord's Supper: now therefore if you could allege many more different reasons between Lot, Job, &c. that were not circumcised, and those not to be baptized, it would little avail in the case, but we shall consider your differences particularly.

Reply.

First, If ever circumcision was appropriated to Abraham's family, and might not be communicated to other visible believers, it was in the first institution, but in the first institution of baptism, it was not so observed, that believers should be gathered into a Christian Church, and then baptized. Mat. 3. 7. John baptized such as came to him, confessing their sins, the Apostles baptized Disciples, such as gladly received their doctrine, &c.

Answ.

There is no such disparity in this as is objected, for Abraham's family was in Covenant before Circumcision was given, only the Covenant was more fully explained and confirmed: and so when John baptized, he baptized the members of the Jews Church in Covenant before, to whom he was sent to turn the heart of the fathers to the children, &c. and to prepare a people for the Lord, and baptism was then given to the Church of the Jews with reference to so many as would receive the doctrine of John, concerning repentance and remission of sins by faith in the Messiah now come amongst them, and therefore Christ himself, and his Disciples remained yet members of that Church.

Secondly, Though the visible Kingdom of Christ was not yet to be erected in Christian Churches, till after Christ's death and Resurrection, whereby he did put an end to the Jewish worship, and therefore no Christian Churches could be gathered by John, yet there was a middle state of a people prepared for the Lord, gathered out of the Jewish Church, which according to that state were made the Disciples of John, by solemn profession of their repentance or conversion to God, and acknowledgement of Christ the Lamb of God already come, to whom the seal of baptism was appropriated. As for the instances, Act. 2. 37. &c. and 8. 37. and 10. 47, 48. they are spoken to before in the first consideration.

Reply.

Secondly, Lot, Job, &c. were not bound to join to Abraham's family, and be circumcised, but now all visible believers are bound to seek baptism in an holy manner.

Answ.

First, This difference makes little to the point in hand, it is enough, that all that would be circumcised were bound to join to that Church, and so now. Secondly, in after times no doubt every true proselyte fearing God was bound to join to that church, as well as now; and if now all visible believers be bound to profess their faith, and seek baptism in an holy manner, why should they not be bound to join to some visible Church, and seek it there, (as well as of old?) yea where should they profess their faith, but in the visible Churches, as the Proselytes of old did?

Your third difference is oft pressed, and answered before.

Reply.

Fourthly, If Circumcision be appropriated to the family of Abraham, it is because that Covenant was peculiar to Abraham's posterity, namely, that Christ should come of Isaac, but baptism is the Seal of the Covenant of Grace without peculiarity or respect.

Answ.

This difference is of little moment, neither will it hold, for first, though that, and other promises had a special eye to Abraham's family, yet Circumcision sealed the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. to them being in visible Covenant with the Church, as baptism now doth. Secondly, this peculiar respect you speak of, no way hindereth the joining of many servants to Abraham's family, and Covenant, nor any proselytes to the Church afterward of any nation, no more then now in respect of baptism. Thirdly, the true reason was, because although the Covenant was made with others, yet not established, nor enlarged towards them; and hence if they would partake of such a Covenant, they must join in this; which also is the glory of the rich grace of Christ shining forth in Church-Covenant with all that will become a people to him to this day.

The first difference is answered in the first and second.

CHAP. IX. Consid. 4.

Reply.

TO the fourth consideration, first, Men are capable of Church censures, either as having power to dispense them: or as being subject unto them, &c. In the second sense, many are capable of Church privileges, who are not subject to Church censures: as the children of Christian Parents are capable of baptism, and approved members of any true Church are capable of Seals in other Congregations amongst you, who are not subject to the censures of the other Congregation, spiritual Communion in public prayer, whereof visible believers (not in Church order) are capable, but not subject to common censures in your sense.

Answ.

This distinction is needless: our meaning is plain in the second sense, and therefore we say nothing to what is objected against the first. To the instances objected against the proposition in the second sense, we answer first concerning the Infants of Church-members, they are subject to censures, whensoever they offend the Church, as others are, though so long as they live innocently, they need them not.

Secondly, Members of any true visible Church are subject, and so capable of censure, (though not in another Church) which is not in in the proposition. 2▪ Also they are capable of censures mediately by and in that other Church, if they there offend: for that Church may admonish and prosecute the admonition in the Church to which they belong, and refuse society with them, if they repent not, which cannot be said of such as are not members of any visible Church, who cannot be prosecuted to excommunication in any place.

Thirdly, Public prayers of the Church, though they be an ordinance of Christ, and the Church have a special Communion in them, in which respect others do not share, yet they are not a privilege or peculiar ordinance, wherein none but the Church may share, for an Heathen or Infidel may hear the word and join in the prayers, being cultus naturalis, saying Amen unto the same; which cannot be said of seals and censures, being cultus institutus.

Reply.

Secondly, A Person baptized, is not baptized into that particular Congregation only, but into all Churches, and in every particular▪ Church hath all the privileges of a baptized person, and so to be esteemed of them. Now the privilege of the baptized person, walking in the truth, and able to examine himself, is to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, as all circumcised persons had right thereby to eat the Passover in any society, where God should choose to put his name there, Exod. 4. 47. Deut. 16. 1, 1.

Answ.

This seemeth to touch the question it self, rather then the proposition of this fourth consideration: but we shall answer to it as it stands. 1. Here you grant that a person baptized, is baptized unto a particular Congregation: which we accept as a yielding of the question unawares. 2. If you mean, that such hath a liberty of Communion in a way of brotherly love in all Churches where he comes, we grant, (so far as nothing in him justly hinder) but if you mean that he is baptized into all Churches, so as to challenge a right of Membership in them all, we deny it, as a position that would take away all distinction of Churches, as we have formerly shown. 3. We deny that the Lord's Supper is the privilege of a baptized person, able to examine himself, & walking in the truth as a baptized person, for then a Papist converted to the truth, able to examine himself, hath a right to the Lord's Supper in every Church, before he make any profession of his conversion, and faith in any particular Church, for he may be such a baptized person. And we may say the like of an excommunicate penitent. 4. We grant that a baptized person is not only baptized in to that particular Church whereof he was first a member: For if it be a seal of his initiation into that particular Church only; then he must be rebaptized as oft as he enters into another, but he is baptized (in the sense formerly shown) into the whole mystical Body of Christ, and hence hath jus ad rem, or a remote right unto the privileges of the Church everywhere, but that therefore he hath immediate right to the fruition of all, when he is severed from that particular church wherein he was baptized, that follows not: for as he had this latter right in the first Church wherein he was baptized, so he must have it in any of the Churches of Christ afterward; now if in the first Church the fruition of ordinances came by orderly joining▪ to it: so it must be afterward, for as we said before, such as the communion is, such ought to be the union, he that would have political communion with the political Churches of Christ, must be some where in political union with them, otherwise one may have communion in all Churches & yet never unite himself to any one, which loose walking we are persuaded Christ Jesus will not allow. 5 The similitude from a circumcised person will not hold. First, because there is no parity between several families in the same Church, and several Churches in the New Testament, but rather several seats of communicants in the same Church answers, several families eating the passover in the Church of the Jews. Secondly, an Edomite circumcised though he were converted, and acknowledged the true God in his own country never so fully, yet might not eat the passover till he joined to the church of Israel as all other Proselytes did: & so is it here.

Reply.

Thirdly, there is not the same reason of every Church privilege; one may have right to some who may not meddle with others, as members of one Church may join in hearing and prayer with another Church: but not meddle in election and ordination of their Teachers, and therefore the proposition is not so evident to be taken without proof, that they have no power to admit a believer into communion in any Church privilege, who have no power to excommunicate.

Answ.

What is here objected from the liberty or restriction of Church members in another Congregation, is answered before in the first objection, and therefore the proposition may stand good for all that is here said. 2 That which is set down as the proposition, is neither the same with that in our reason, nor any way allowed by us; for we speak not here of power to admit, but of the right to be partakers: neither do we deny a power in officers to admit members of other Churches to the seals, though they have no power to excommunicate them. 3 If our proposition seem to need proof: the reason of it is at hand, because those that are the peculiar privileges or proper privileges or proprieties of the Church, as seals and censures being of the same nature, viz. outward ordinances of Christ ordained by him for the edification of his Church and jointly given to his Church: and therefore look to what Church he hath given the one, he hath given the other also: if the one, viz. censures, be given to the Church of a visible Congregation, then the other: they are all (both seals and censures) contained in the keys which are given to the visible instituted Churches of the New Testament: not to the Catholic (as such:) for a godly man justly cast out of the particular Church, yet cannot be cast out of the Catholic.

Reply.

That visible believers baptized into a true Church, professing the true faith, and walking in holy obedience, and their seed should be judged such as are without in the Apostles sense, because they are not externally joined as set members to some peculiar Congregation in Church Covenant, is affirmed, not proved.

Answ.

Comming to the assumption of our argument it is expressed (according to the frequent manner in this Reply) in such terms as it is not affirmed by us, and therefore if it want proof, blame not us our assumption is; Such as are not in Church Covenant are not capable of Church censures: where by being in Church covenant we mean either implicitly or explicitly, membership in any true Church, as in our answer we express to prevent mistakes: and this is proved from 1 Cor. 5. 12. and in applying hereof we do not affirm that such are simply without in the Apostles sense, but in some respect only, viz. in regard of visible church Communion.

Reply.

First, It doth oft fall out that the true members of the Catholic Church and best members of the orthodox Church, by a prevailing faction in the Church, may be no members of any distinct society, and shall their posterity be counted aliens from the Covenant, and debarred from the Sacraments, because their parents are unjustly separated from the inheritance of the Lord?

Answ.

This objection is before answered in the first consideration, where was given the instance of Athanasius, and it is answered by the Reply it self in the next words; Surely as parents unjustly excommunicated, do continue still visible members of the flock of Christ (understand that particular Church out of which they are cast,) so the right of Baptism belongs to their Infants: which being so, they are not without that Church, though debarred unjustly of the present communion with it, unless he renounce that Church, or other.

Reply.

Secondly, If such Churches renounce it as are no members of a politick spiritual fellowship be without, then the members of one Church are without unto another, &c.

Answ.

This objection we have had and answered oft before. In a word, there cannot be the like reason, no not in respect of that other Church, who may in a due order of Christ persecute the censures against them, though not completely amongst themselves; which cannot be said of such as have not joined themselves to any Church, and therefore we deny that the Apostles reason was because they were without to Corinth, but without to all Churches.

Reply.

Thirdly, (The fornicators of this world) do they not explain whom the Apostle pointeth unto by the title of being without Verse the 10. 11. such as had not received the Covenant of grace?

Answ.

We never thought otherwise but that the fornicators of this world and the heathen are most properly without in the Apostles sense; but if our words be observed, that in a certain respect, or as our words are, in regard of visible Church communion, such as are in no Church society are said to be without, what great offense have we given? For first, is not a godly man (if justly excommunicate) without in this sense. Secondly, doth not the Apostle John expressly call them without that forsook the fellowship of the Church, 1 John 2. 19. saying they went out? Thirdly, were not the Catechumen of old in this respect without, and the lapsed in times of persecution, and the like, who (in those zealous and severe times of Church discipline) were not only said to be without, but stood without, though weeping and praying as penitents at the Church doors, sometimes for two or three years? and after this degree of preparation for entrance into the Church which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there were three more before they were received to the Lord's Supper: which severity though we approve not, yet it may mollify the minds of the godly learned that are apt to be offended at such a word from us. Fourthly, our Savior himself expressly saith (and that not only of those of no Church) but such as were even of the visible Church, and his ordinary hearers, that many of them were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or men without: and therefore this application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. need not be called insolent, or raise such an hubbub abroad, as we perceive it doth.

Reply.

Fourthly, Church order is necessary we deny not, but that a man should be a constant set member of a particular society by Covenant to make him a member of the visible Church, or to give him title or interest to the public order, this is not taught of God.

This is but a bare denial of the position it self, but what is meant by public order we know not: or where the order of Christ (which is granted to be necessary) can be found but in particular Churches, we are yet to learn, neither is it anywhere taught in this Reply, and we would gladly learn how that Church should orderly deal with such a man in case of offense that is of no particular Church.

Reply.

Fifthly, Paul divides all men into two ranks, the first and greater without, the last and lesser within, but that believers, &c. and their children should be reckoned without, we read not in any Scripture, but in Scripture phrase heretics themselves are within. 1 John 2 19. 1 Cor. 11. 19.

Answ.

All that is said in this objection except the last clause, is but a repeated denial of the conclusion in other words: to the objection about Heretics within, we grant they are within till cast out or gone out of the Church, 1 John 2. 19. and if gone out, how are they within? and so if an orthodox professor will frowardly forsake all Churches and live alone, or among the heathen, how is he within? we speak only in general.

Reply.

Sixthly, This hath not been believed in the Church?

Answ.

We are not bound in everything to be of the Churches faith, and what we have said before may satisfy here.

Reply.

Seventhly, Without are Dogs, &c. Rev. 22. 15. not such as are faithful, holy, &c.

Answ.

True, properly such are without, not these, yet in some respects (as hath been said) others also may be without, as such as forsake the Church, &c. as was before said more fully.

Reply.

Eighthly, They that are without in the Apostles sense are Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but we hope you will not pass such rash censure upon the brethren who be not gathered into the society as set members.

Answ.

To say some believers may be without in some respect, is far from such a censure: the Scripture saith of Israel in their corrupt estate, and defect of the Ordinances of God, that they were a long time without God, without Law, without a teaching Priest, yet that hard expression doth not equal them with the heathen; much less to say some believers are without the visible Church in regard of visible Church communion, and we judge no otherwise of such then of ourselves when we were in the like case.

Reply.

Ninthly, Let this interpretation stand, and he shall be without also that is not subject to the censures of the community of the particular combination, few or many, without, or with Officers, and so all the reformed Churches that ascribe the Keys to the Presbytery, or Classis, and not to the community, and some amongst yourselves (if not most) shall be without also.

And therefore we cannot think that approved Christians desiring seals are either without or not capable of Church censures: if they offend, though no set members, for desiring seals, they put themselves under the ordinances for a time, and may be proceeded withal as offending members.

Answ.

This objection hath no color without extreme straining of our application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. seeing we never limited the position to Churches of the same judgment, or in like degree of order to ours; it is only a forced odium which is cast upon us, but we can bear more at our brethren's hands, neither do we know any Church or elder that ascribes the power of the Keys to the Presbytery or Classis, excluding the community amongst us.

Secondly, for that objection that such put themselves under the ordinances of Christ for the time; if with profession of faith and subjection to the government of Christ, they desire seals, it is something; but that the very desiring of seals doth include such a subjection in it self, being but for this or that act of administration, we cannot understand: but let this be really made good, that desiring seals it being a way, that subjects themselves to the Church as members, and the case will be issued, being understood of such approved Christians as the position speaks of.

Lastly, to proceed against such as are not members, or of another Church, as with an offending member of our own, is not much unlike the proceedings of Victor in his contentious time or may sow the seeds of such usurpations, which we leave to the godly wise to consider of.

Reply.

Tenthly, If upon good reason a passage of Scripture can be cleared to prove that for which it was never alleged by any writer, we are not to except against it for want of man's testimony, only in such cases our reasons must be convincing, but for the exposition of this Text we have not observed one substantial ground or approved author to be alleged. Dr. Ames showing the necessity of Christians joining themselves to some peculiar Church giveth this reason; Quoniam alias fieri non potest quin conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt, 1 Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifestly showeth that by them without, heathens and unbelievers must be understood, and not believers, though of no settled society for the time; for thus we conceive he argueth. The signs whereby the faithful are to be discerned from unbelievers must not be confounded: but unless Christians make themselves actual members of a Church, the signs whereby the faithful are discerned from unbelievers, will be obscured and darkened: and if this be his reason, how can that Text be alleged unless by men without, infidels be understood?

Answ.

First, That we have reasons to allege it in that sense and respect declared, may appear by our answers to your objections.

Secondly, That we have one approved author so alleging it, viz. Doctor Ames, shall appear in clearing his meaning from your objections. 1. Grant that by men without (according to Doctor Ames his reason) Infidels be understood by the Apostle, yet how shall the signs discerning believers from unbelievers, be confounded by such as join not to some particular Church, if those believers do not in some respect stand without amongst unbelievers? and the consequence is so plain that the own Syllogism whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much, if it had been suffered to speak out in the conclusion. For instead of saying, except such join to some Church, the signs will be darkened and obscured; the reason rightly concluded would have said ( fieri non potest ) it cannot be but the signs will be confounded: and therefore in his judgment it is unavoidable that such mix themselves with unbelievers, that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense.

Reply.

Again, Doctor Ames, lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received, saith it is required, first, that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession, &c.

Answ.

What you allege here out of Doctor Ames, we confess showeth that he was very large in his charity about the baptizing of Infants, extending the same to the child of a Papist, &c. but it may seem by some passages that he understood by profession of faith, such as live in the visible Churches, and looks at the child of a Papist as one of a visible Church for substance, though so exceedingly corrupt: but all this do not disprove that he understood 1 Cor. 5. 12. otherwise then hath been said.

What you allege out of his second Manuduction concerning the Churches of England we consent unto, neither do we deny seals to any, if they demand them as members of any true Church in England, and in an orderly way.

CHAP. X. Consid. 5.

Reply.

TO the first consideration, If it be repugnant to divine institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptized, walking in the faith, members of the visible Churches, and partakers of Church privileges amongst us, to the Lord's Supper, or their children to baptism; because they be not entered into Church-fellowship according to your order, then it is unlawful though no such evil consequences are to be feared, but if by accident some abuse should fall out, the evil is to be prevented by all lawful means, but the faithful are not to be debarred utterly of the order of God, whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious institution.

Answ.

We cannot but still complain of this liberty, which is taken in changing the terms of the question, First: that clause, Members of visible Churches, is not in the position, nor is it maintained by us in that sense, neither do we limit Church-fellowship to our order, (as it is called) but acknowledge Churches defective in matters of order, (as was said) in the answer: and therefore it is an apparent wrong to us and to the readers, so oft to put in such things as are not in the controversy.

Secondly, If it be unlawful by divine institution, may not evil consequences be added, and if both hold, are not our reasons the more strong? What needeth then such a Reply?

Thirdly, We have oft granted a remote right, but next and immediate we still deny, and we conceive no other order of God in his Churches to prevent such evils, then by joining to the instituted Churches of Christ?

Reply.

Seals may be profaned when the dispensers cannot help it: but here is no fear or danger of such consequences necessary to follow: for we speak not of all sorts, at random, but of Christians professing the faith entirely, lawfully baptized, known and approved to the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches amongst us sufficiently known to you, or orderly recommended, &c.

Answ.

The fear and danger in this case is more then (so far off) can easily be discerned, though the limitations be good in themselves, yet the application of this description in the first part of it would open a door wider then many can imagine, for many such (in the judgment even of the wisest) coming in to this state of temptations prove far otherwise, (even yourselves being Judges, if you were here) we suppose the experience of the discoveries God hath made in these late trials of England, amongst forward professors, will teach our brethren to consider how many professors may prove here. Yet secondly, if you add such as retaining their membership in your Churches, are recommended unto us by your Churches, or by known godly Ministers, we can then according to order receive them, and avoid the confusion and inconveniences we objected. Thirdly, if also it be taken into the description, known and sufficiently approved of ourselves, then the door is open to them to the communion of the Church and all the privileges thereof, though they cannot settle in the place of their present abode, and this way of order would prevent the inconveniences: but if we come to put a difference any other way, we cannot avoid it but great offense will be given to many, and the inconveniences objected in some degree at least will follow here with us, and it may be much more in some other places.

Reply.

You profess high respect to your brethren in Old England, but it seems you judge them insufficient to give you orderly testimony of the sincerity of approved Christians well known and living amongst them, which two cannot well agree.

Answ.

This Position holds forth no such judgment of the insufficiency of our Brethren in the case, neither have we shown it by rejecting such orderly testimony that we know.

Reply.

We speak not of such, who against light refuse to profess subjection to the Gospel of Christ, or to join to some approved Church, &c.

Answ.

Neither do we impute that to all that join not unto us, but our meaning is, that under such a description of approved Christians, we shall be necessitated to admit of some, if not many such.

Reply.

No question but many have been admitted by the Church, who in truth are much too light, and some refused, who are better deserving then they that cast them off.

Answ.

Be it so, that through personal failings, and weakness of discerning, it may and do fall out sometimes, yet this no way hinders, but that all lawful means to prevent the same may and ought to be used, and this we may before the Lord profess, that the purpose and desire of our hearts are, as well to embrace the weakest humble Christian, as to keep out the proud Pharisee: and we have seen a gracious presence of Christ in his Churches, blessing our endeavors therein, whatsoever any discontented persons returning back, may clamour to the contrary.

CHAP. XI. Consid. 6.

Reply.

TO the sixth consideration, this conclusion is not to the question propounded: for we speak of such as cannot, not of such as refuse to join themselves to the Churches; or if they do not join, it is not out of contempt, or willful neglect, but for lack of opportunity, or through their default, that should admit them, but do not.

Answ.

The learned Author here wholly mistakes the conclusion of this argument; the conclusion is plain and expressed with the ordinary note, Ergo no Christian can expect by the appointment of God, to partake in the seals, till he hath joined himself in Church-fellowship, and in the call of the Minister; and this is fully to the question propounded: and we marveld it should not be observed, but the last words of the answer should be put instead of it, which are only a secondary deduction from the former, as an absurdity, which may follow: if the other be not granted. And yet hence occasion is taken to charge us with injurious and tyrannical dealing toward such as are not admitted, which we leave to the Lord to judge of, and of us. You say, you accuse not the discretion of our Churches, but impute it to the rashness of the zealous multitude, but if it were so practiced, as is conceived, the Churches and their guides should show little wisdom, and faithfulness to the Lord, and the souls of his people.

Reply.

When a reason is demanded of your judgment, why you debar approved Christians from the seals, and we dislike it, you should put this note upon them, as if against light they refused orderly to subject themselves to the Gospel of Christ. What warrant you have thus to censure, what use of this manner of dispute, we leave it to your godly wisdom to judge.

Answ.

We are heartily sorry that this reverend man of God, out of a mere and palpable mistake of the conclusion of the dispute, should run out to condemn us for so much censoriousness of others without cause, whether our manner of dispute be here so without use, we leave to the judicious reader to judge. And that we are far from such censures of godly approved Christians amongst us, we can approve ourselves to God, and the consciences of many that live amongst us; we do not say that all who do not join with us, do refuse against light, yet we find it true too oft, that forward professors in England here discover evidently an heart refusing against light to submit to God's ordinances, and therefore we had cause to say, it were unreasonable such should have equal liberty with others.

Reply.

In the consideration it self there are many propositions couched to be examined, the first, That none have power to dispense seals but such as are called to the Ministry, is freely granted. The second, That no man can be so called, till there be a Church to call him, needeth explication. For by the Church you must understand the community of the faithful, as they are one body without officers, and such a Church there cannot be, without a ministry to call, and admit them into Church fellowship.

Answ.

This consideration shines with such clearness, that an impartial eye may easily see that the truth by sundry diverticula is rather clouded, then the argument fairly answered. This second proposition being too plain to be denied, interpretations are sought, but they are rather objections, to which we shall answer in order. First, though we grant the Lord ordinarily gathered Churches by the ministry of men in Office, as the Apostles, Evangelists, &c. yet not always so, as is evident, Acts 11. 20, 21. The story of Waldus is well known, and we suppose you will grant those Waldenses the name of a true Church. Origen when he was not allowed of the Church to be a Ministes, yet converted many who died Martyrs. The story also of Frumentius is well known, with divers others. Secondly, Ministers by Office are of two sorts, either such as are called immediately or mediately, such as were immediately and extraordinarily called, were before Churches, and were called together and begin Churches, (as the Apostles, Matth. 28. 20. Act. 1. 8.) But all ordinary officers that are to administer in a Church do necessarily presuppose a Church to call them, unless any will adventure to say in plain English, that the calling of a Minister may be without the antecedent election of the people, and then we shall find what to Reply.

Reply.

The Apostles baptized not themselves, but by the help of others, and those not called of the people to baptize, 1 Cor. 1. 17.

Answ.

Be it so that in Corinth Paul baptized not many but by others, yet first we demand, By whom did Paul and the Apostles baptize? It was either by Evangelists, and so it is all one, as if the Apostles, as extraordinary officers did it, or by the Pastors newly chosen and ordained in the Churches newly gathered, who might baptize the rest; and then the Church was before such officers: or else by private persons, which is denied expressly in the Reply to the first proposition.

Reply.

The Apostles appointed by election Elders in every City or Church, and so there was a Church before Elders, but this Church was a society of believers by Baptism admitted into Church fellowship, and therefore there must be Ministers to baptize, before there can be a Church to call a Minister. For a company of unbaptized men cannot choose a Minister to baptize them.

Answ.

We see here still how unawares the truth of this proposition and of the position it self breaketh forth; for the proposition it is fully yielded and is most plain in the place alluded to Acts 14. Vers. 23. And the position is yielded also, for if the Apostles admitted believers into all those Churches in the first constitution of them by baptism, (which is the very truth we contend for, and was formerly denied) and these Churches were such as chose Elders (and therefore were particular Churches) and so the cause is fully yielded.

Reply.

A company of converts unbaptized ought to desire baptism, but they have no power to elect one amongst themselves to dispense the seals unto the rest, &c. It can never be shown in Scripture that any society of unbaptized did first choose from among themselves a Pastor or Teacher by whom they might be baptized, you cannot produce one example or other proof in Scripture of one man teaching the Gospel ministerially, but he was baptized and a member of a true Church or of a society, who made choice of a Pastor or Teacher, but they were baptized persons.

Answ.

1 If all this were granted that when Churches were gathered by Apostles and extraordinary officers out of persons unbaptized, they were first baptized into Church fellowship, before they chose Officers, and so long as the Apostles remained, enjoyed from them other ordinances, as Act. 2. and so had no Officers chosen by themselves, but by Christ immediately for them, yet as when the Apostles left them, they must choose Officers if they will enjoy ordinances: So when there is no such Apostles nor Evangelists, nor no need of baptism, (as is usually the cause of Christians arising out of popery) in this case we say such Churches can partake of no ordinances without they choose officers, and yet this varyeth not from the Scripture pattern neither. But only so far as the state of those believers differ, when Paul found about twelve believers at Ephesus, who were baptized by John the Baptist, Act. 19. 1. &c. If these were by the Apostle set into a constituted Church, as is probable, (being called on further to the knowledge of Christ and his will and ways) there was no need of baptizing them again with water, but only with the holy Ghost, as the Apostles were at Pentecost, Act. 1. 5. with 2. 1. 2. and yet no varying from the rule in so doing: and the like is our case now.

2. If this be so as here you urge, then those former assertions must needs fall to the ground; as, That every society in covenant with God is the true Church of God, page 23. and that it is simply necessary to the being of a Church, that it he laid upon Christ the foundation, which being done, the remaining of what is forbidden, or want of what is commanded, cannot put the society from the right and title of a Church. If these were so a company of unbaptized persons may be a Church, being in Covenant with God and laid on Christ the foundation, though they want baptism.

3. Though no such example of unbaptized persons choosing a Pastor among themselves can be shown, when there was no need thereof; (Apostles being at hand to baptize them) yet why in absence of Apostles, &c. might they not choose some other baptized Christian, who coming into some far remote country of Infidels, is a means of their conversion; we see nothing to hinder: it would be hard for any to show an example of Presbyters holding a Synod or ordaining of Elders, without Apostles or some extraordinary officer, yet we suppose, you make no doubt of such things.

4▪ If an example of one unbaptized that preached & baptized Ministerially would satisfy, the example of John the Baptist might answer your demand, for whether he baptized himself, or were baptized by some other at first, an unbaptized person did baptize, but we see no need of such an example: Scripture grounds are sufficient to guide us in these cases, be they rules, examples or good consequences deduced from them, and we reason thus; a Church of believers professing Christ have liberty from Christ to choose their Officers: But a company of unbaptized men professing the entire faith in a combined society, is a true Church: and therefore may choose their officers.

Reply.

The third proposition: That the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church, must also rightly be understood, by the Church must not be understood the faithful alone, but their guides and Officers with them, who are to go before them and to govern and direct them in their choice, neither can we say two or three believers linked in a society is such a Church, to whom the call of Ministers do belong, but that right was given by Christ to such Churches, as were gathered by the Apostles.

Answ.

The first Limitation of this proposition we pass over as being spoken to in the former; to this we answer, that when a Church have guides, we grant they are to govern them therein, but not to limit them, whom to choose, but when the Church have no such guides, (as by death and other ways it may fall out,) shall they then lose their right of choosing? if so, let it be shown to whom the right falls; They may take what counsel and help from others they want, but the choice is only in them, and therefore this limitation is needless. For the number of two or three we contend not, but such Churches as the Apostles gathered were particular Congregations, and therefore the right is in such, be they more or fewer. When Bellarmine saith, that our Ministers intruded themselves into Churches; no, saith Dr. Field, for the people elected them, which they might lawfully do and separate from wicked Ministers, which he proves by the testimony of Cyprian, writing to the Bishops of Spain not to communicate with Basilides and Martialis, who fell to Idolatry in times of persecution, Quando ipsa plebs potestatem habet, &c. Also from Ocham, who saith, Si Papa & maxim celebres Episcopy incidunt in haeresin, ad Catholicos devoluta est potestas omnis judicandi: to which he adds this reason, either they must separate from them, and choose others, or consent to their impieties. Field lib. 3. cap. 39. What followeth in this place being little to this point, and for the most part not scrupled by us: and what is not acknowledged by us, we shall have a fitter occasion to speak to it, therefore here we pass it over.

Reply▪

Proposi. 4. That all those who desire seals are bound to join themselves in Church fellowship, that so they may call a Minister to dispense the seals unto them, will not follow from the former rightly understood: for they must partake of the seals before they can join themselves together in Church estate.

Answ.

To this objection was spoken before, only we marvel why you say they must first partake of Seals, when as Acts 2. they were baptized and added to the Church the same day: and 'tis granted the Apostles gathered Churches by baptism.

Reply.

Such as for lack of means and opportunity cannot join in such estate, er be dispersed by persecution or destitute of Pastors or Teachers, may for a time seek the seals in other societies.

Answ.

The first instance is the thing in question; and such as may come to any society to desire seals are not wholly destitute of means and opportunity to join, viz. to that society. The two other instances being of such as may be supposed still to hold their right in a Church society; the thing is granted by us in way of communion of Churches.

Reply.

The people also who are deprived of right and liberty to choose their pastour, may desire the seals of him that is set over them.

Answ.

This objection is easy, for in desiring seals of him and submitting themselves to his ministry, they do now choose him; however at first they opposed his coming. But what is this to what ought to be in an orderly way whereof we speak?

Reply.

These propositions being allowed for currant; a nation or people plunged into Idolatry or Infidelity, or otherwise dischurched cannot by ordinary means recover into a Church estate, wherein they may lawfully and according to God's appointment desire or expect that the seals of the Covenant shall be dispensed unto them.

Answ.

What should hinder, if the whole nation would be willing, to recover themselves into Churches? Indeed that is rare to be found that all will affect such a recovery. But we see nothing to hinder but all the nation or so many as are awakened in conscience to bewail their Apostasy and lament after the Lord, having especially the countenance of the supreme magistrate, several companies of Christians may combine in Churches so as may best suite with their edification, choose officers and enjoy ordinances. Nay, e contra, our Protestant Divines, as Chemnitz, Field, Brenz, Whitacher, Luther, &c. make people's power of electing their Ministers the best foundation of a people's recovery of a true Ministry and Church estate.

Reply.

The fifth Proposition riseth beyond measure, That no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seals, till he have joined himself in Church fellowship and in the call of the Minister. We conceive you will not say that children and women have to do in the call of the Minister. If some part of the Church do not consent in the call of the Minister, must they separate from the ordinances of worship, &c.

Answ.

The seeming swellings of this proposition will easily fall and run within banks and bounds, if it be received in its true sense and meaning; for by the call of a Minister must needs be understood the voluntary subjection of all Church members to his ministry after he is called, as well as the act of election of him at the first: It were irrational to think a Minister is to be chosen over again, whensoever a member is added to the Church. And therefore our meaning was not hard to conceive, and being so taken, women choose their Minister, that is, voluntarily submit to him being chosen: Children are subjected to him by their parents: the dissenting part of the Church ought to submit to him being chosen, and do if they remain under his Ministry; and so in all other cases you have or can suppose▪

Reply.

Here you say people must join in the call of a Minister before they can lawfully desire and be admitted to the seals. And another hath zealously affirmed, It is a presumptuous sin to choose an Officer not trained up and • ryed in debating, discussing, carrying and contriving Church affairs, in admonishing, exhorting, comforting, &c. Lay these together and consider how long many a poor soul converted to the faith must be compelled to want God's ordinances.

Answ▪

First, it doth not answer the profession in the letter thus to join us with Mr. Robinson as another of the same sort as it were. For such as would gladly receive every Syllable from us that may dislodge their thoughts of separation in us (as we are heartily desired to be assured of in the Epistle to this Reply) we think would not so closely join us with such they would have us parted from; and upon so little occasion and to so little purpose, unless they do much forget themselves.

Secondly, when it cannot be denied but the choice of Ministers is in the Church, and that hands should not rashly be laid on any man: and Deacons the lowest Office should be proved and then Minister being found blameless, yea he saith and these also proved, implying that others also should be so, 1 Tim. 3. 10. what fault can be found with the substance of what either Robinson or ourselves speak, if our meaning, and his were but charitably taken? If his word be over-zealous to say it is a presumptuous sin to do otherwise, what is that to us?

Thirdly, For the delay of ordinances, if both these be taken together: in most cases it need not be long, where God affordeth able and fit men for office. But if some delay be, and that a church want some ordinances, and cannot by Communion with other Churches enjoy them, (which is rare,) yet is it not better to forbear some ordinances a while, then miscarry in so great a work as the choice of officers, upon which the following comfort and good of the Church doth so much depend? The demand following is answered in this whole discourse, and we hope not with words but proofs; especially in our answer to the Reply in the first consideration: neither do we see any such difficulty, but that such Christians may as easily join to such a Church for a time, as desire to enjoy the ordinances, and to sit loose from it: for transient members we disallow not.

Reply.

If the propositions may stand for good, I fear we shall scarce find that ever in ordinary way the Sacraments were lawfully dispensed or received in the Christian Churches of God since the first foundation of them.

Answ.

If they be taken in their true meaning, and in that latitude we intend them, we see no such cause of scruple. For what is more ordinary in all true Churches, then for people, first to choose their Ministers, & then to receive the seals at their hands? and this hath been the way of Ancient reformers, It is true; many corruptions have been in many true Churches, and usurpations upon the right of the people in choosing their Ministers, as also in administrations of the Ordinances themselves, and oft in the Constitution of Churches. But as the maintaining of any truth of God against those corruptions in worship, &c. doth not argue an unlawfulness of the ordinances in such Churches, but convinceth only the corrupt administration of them: So in this case to assent the right way of Churches electing officers, and enjoying Ordinances against all corruptions that have been in the Churches, doth not make a nullity of the Ordinances themselves. We may say that this conclusion riseth beyond measure. The objections being thus answered, we leave the conclusion to the judgment of the indifferent Reader.

CHAP. XII.

Reply.

TO the seventh consideration, The practice of the Church of Strangers in London, recorded by John Alasco, is for differing from your judgment and practice in the point in question. For first, say they, Paul testifieth that the Church itself, without exception of any member of it, is clean or holy by the administration of baptism.

Answ.

We confess the same.

Reply.

Secondly, They bold Communion with the Church of England as one with theirs.

Answ.

The Church of England they call it not, but the English Churches: and we deny not the same in an orderly way: as they also required Testimony of their piety, if any did but present a child to baptism in their Church. We have often professed this, and by your own grant most of the approved Christians amongst us are not members of the English Churches, having renounced their right of membership and Commuion with the Church they were of there.

Reply.

Thirdly, This order was observed by them to prevent the impostures of some that pretended to the English they were joined to the Strangers; & contra.

Answ.

This was not the only reason of their order; for his words are, All strangers do not join themselves to our Church; yea there are those that avoiding all Churches, &c. which plainly showeth they looked further then such according to our practice: even their own countrymen fled for religion, as we are: they yet received them not till by public profession of faith and subjection to discipline, they joined themselves to some Congregational Church.

Secondly, this showeth what disorder and abuse of ordinances will follow from such a liberty to admit such as are not joined to some Church: for by this means many will neglect all order and discipline, if they may but have the seals.

Thirdly, to put all out of question that their practice and judgment in effect was the same with ours in this point, note the first question propounded by them, Are these Infants which you offer the • eed of this, Church that they may lawfully be here baptized by our Ministry?

CHAP. XIII.

THus far we have answered to the Reply made to the considerations in our answer to the 3. and 4. positions. Now whereas we took notice of three objections against our first consideration, and answered the same: It pleaseth the learned author to take up only two of them, and with much enlargement to urge the same as his reasons against the positions, and to apply our answers thereunto; by which means our answers to the objections briefly set down may seem not so apt and full here as they would appear in their proper places: and therefore it will be needful for us to enlarge ourselves somewhat in answering some passages at least in the reasons as they are here propounded, before we come to the Reply.

Reply.

Reason. 1. That sacred order God hath set in his visible Church, &c.

Answ.

These words with all that follow, whatever they may seem to carry with them, are nothing but a bare denial of the positions in variety of expressions.

Reply.

For first, The baptism of John was true baptism, &c. but he never demanded of those he received, whether they were entered into Church Covenant, &c.

Answ.

This we had in substance before, and is answered (with all the other instances in this first reason) in our answer to the Reply to the first consideration, and in other places; and therefore in vain here to repeat the same. And we have observed more then once your plain confession that the Apostles constituted Churches by baptism, even such Churches as they set Elders in by the election of the people.

Reply.

The second reason in substance is this, because from Christ and the constant practice of the Apostles we learn, that such as are called of God, received the holy Ghost, believe in the Lord, profess their faith in him with repentance and amendment of life, have a right to baptism, and desiring it are wronged if they be deprived thereof.

Answ.

We grant the whole; but as it is supposed in due order they must receive it; so we desire no more, for we grant upon these common grounds, such have jus ad rem, but not jus in re, and the immediate fruition of them.

Reply.

Thirdly, By a lively faith a man hath internal Communion with Christ, by profession of the entire faith joined with conformity of life in righteousness, holiness and fellowship of love, he is a member of the visible Congregation or flock of Christ, though no set member of a free Independent society: and baptism is a seal of our admission into the flock of Christ; not ever more, but by accident, of our receiving into a particular Congregation.

Answ.

This reason stands upon such a sense of the Catholik Church as cannot be found: and it was before confessed that the Catholic Church consisteth of all true particular Churches, as the parts of it. And therefore how can a man be visibly a member of the whole, and belong to no part thereof?

Secondly, We deny not but such have a right to be in the particular Church, and so to baptism and all ordinances? but as by such profession they are not members of any particular Church, so neither have they immediate right to the privileges thereof without admittance into the same. Fit matter, such are for a particular visible Church that profess the entire faith, &c. But it doth not admit them actually thereunto: and your own expression secretly implieth as much, when you say baptism is a seal of our admission into the Church or flock of Christ; If baptism be the seal of our admission, then there is an admission thereunto before baptism: but who doth admit, and where, and when is any admitted to the Church, but in particular Congregations? Can any be admitted into a Church, that whole Church being ignorant thereof? but a man may profess the entire faith, and live accordingly amongst the Heathen, where neither any Church nor member of it take knowledge thereof; and therefore bare profession doth not admit men, but make them fit to be received and admitted into the visible Church.

Your fourth Reason we have had twice before, and answered the same.

Reply.

To our answer of the first objection; from the Instances of the Centurion, Lydia, the Jailour, and the Eunuch.

First, If where the holy Ghost is given and received, and faith professed according to God's Ordinance, there none may hinder from being baptized (soil▪ by such as have power to baptize them,) then either such are members of the Church, or baptism is not a privilege of the Church; then it is not essential to baptism in the first institution that it should be dispensed to none but members of a Congregational assembly.

Answ.

It is freely granted, First, That baptism is a privilege of the Church. Secondly, that such as profess the faith, and have received the Holy Ghost, are members of the Church, (if by Church be meant the Church mystical considered as visible, though not always political) Thirdly, that these may receive baptism by such as have power to baptize them; but immediately to baptize them, none had power but by an extraordinary call of God so to do, as hath been formerly shown. But it will not hence follow, that ordinary officers have such a power, (wanting such extraordinary call) because the members of the Church Catholic having right unto the seals; yet the immediate fruition of them, they must have by ordinary officers in a political body, the only subject according to order of all such institutions: otherwise we must admit private baptisms, if the extraordinary examples of the Apostles be pressed for our pattern.

Reply.

Then the Apostles in dispensing seals walked by rules of Scripture and grounds common to us, and then the difficulty remaining is only this: Whether a Pastor may dispense seals to such as have right to them and do orderly desire them, though he be not yet a set member of a Congregation

Answ.

We grant the Apostles ordinarily and generally baptized upon common grounds, but still when they did so they received them into some particular Church; and so baptized them: and in the like orderly way any pastour may do the same. Secondly, we answer, things may be done ( sano sensu ) upon common and moral grounds, and yet may not be done by others upon the same grounds. To give one instance instead of many: the Apostles preached the Gospel to gather in the elect of God and to edify the Church &c. and Ministers upon the same common grounds must now preach the Gospel also: yet in that the Apostles on those grounds preached to all Nations, this doth not warrant Ministers now to do the like: so here though we baptize believers as they did, yet we may not do it to all in all cases as they did. And therefore the rule holds only when all circumstances are alike as well as the Common grounds.

Reply.

Secondly, In the instance given, it is not probable that baptism was evermore administered by the Apostles or Evangelists. For before the death of Christ the Disciples baptized, when they were neither Apostles nor Evangelists properly. After the death of Christ, &c. If Philip, Ananias, and others might baptize such as were no members of particular Congregations, then may ordinary Pastors do the like.

Answ.

You mistake here in the force of our answer, as hath been shown in the first consideration, to which this objection and answer belong. For we do not make all the Acts of the Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary, but generally orderly in the way we profess. Secondly, we answer to the particulars, (not to wrestle with the Ghosts of human imaginations and conjectures, whether any besides the Apostles baptized the 3000. Act. 2.) As for Philip and Ananias if they baptized, did they baptize as private men, or as Church Officers? If the second, what Officers were they? ordinary or extraordinary? We think it will not be thought they were ordinary who were honored with such extraordinary work: But in what Office soever they were, those particular actions (in baptizing the Eunuch and Paul ) were done by an immediate call of God, as is evident in the story.

Reply.

Thirdly, It is very improbable that the persons baptized were in Church State, or Order. If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved, this is not to the purpose, for men have not right to baptism, because members of the Jewish Church, but because Disciples, and as you say, joined together in Covenant, &c.

Answ.

We grant, that since the visible kingdom of Christ was set up in visible Christian Churches, the seals belong properly and ordinarily to the members of Christian Churches not Jewish: yet we may affirm that if in any special case a believer was baptized by any that had a special call thereto, where there was no Christian Church present actually to join unto: yet being a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved, the case does not so much vary from the set▪ Order of Christ in those times, and that is all we intend.

Reply.

If the Eunuch, and Centurion were proselytes, and of the Jewish Church, the Samaritans whom Philip baptized were not so, and that any Gentiles, or the Jailor were set members of a Christian assembly, is very strange, &c.

Answ.

This is fully answered before in the first consideration; and that which is according to the rule and mind of Christ, and the first, and common practice of the Apostles, Act. 2. to join men to the Church when they baptized them, need not seem strange.

Reply.

In the Apostles practice two things are to be considered. First, the circumstance of the action. Secondly, the substance or quality of the Act. In some circumstances the baptizing of some of these might be extraordinary, but the substance, and quality of the action was grounded upon • ules perpetual, and common to us and them. That is done in an extraordinary way, &c.

Answ.

1 We suppose amongst such Circumstances you will reckon that for one, that the Eunuch was baptized alone in the Wilderness, not in any visible assembly of Saints. Wherein ordinary Pastors may not imitate that Act: and this comes not far short of what we say: for the chief proof that they were not received into a particular Church, lies in their absence from such an assembly: and if they might be admitted to the Catholic Church without the presence of any Christian (but him that baptized them) why not into a particular Church as well? 2 The large discourse about the Apostles extraordinary power, and doing things upon common grounds: is so oft said for substance, and answered before, that it were vain to trouble the Reader again with the same thing.

Reply.

Secondly, an argument follows necessarily from a particular example to a general, when the proof of one particular to another is made by force of the similitude common to the whole kind under which those particulars are contained. Now in this matter we speak of; no reason can be named why we should think it lawful for the Apostles to baptize such as were no set members, and the same should be unlawful in all cases for Pastors of particular Congregations.

Answ.

We deny that the Apostles did so ordinarily, and therefore your Argument doth not hold; if it be built upon the common practice; but if it be built upon some few special cases▪ we retort the Argument thus: That which the Apostles did ordinarily upon common grounds, that Pastors ought to do: but ordinarily they baptized Disciples, admitting them first into particular Churches; therefore in the third reason we grant the conclusion of it, that the Apostles did walk by ordinary rules generally.

Reply.

Fourthly, the practice of the Apostles in receiving the faithful, &c. is backed on divine precept, &c.

Answ.

If you mean they baptized such without receiving them into some particular Church, we deny this assumption upon the grounds laid down before.

Reply.

Fifthly, In the first consideration you prove the seals to be the privilege of the Church in ordinary dispensation by this passage of Scripture, Then they that gladly received the word were baptized: but if the Apostles baptized by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose.

Answ.

Although the printed Copy of our answer omit this proof wholly, and also, Rom. 9. 4▪ yet in our true Cypy we alleged, Acts 2 41, 42. 47. wherein you will find not only this passage, Then they that gladly received the word were baptized: but withal that they were added to the Church, and such a Church as continued steadfastly in the fellowship, &c. of the Apostles.

Likewise Verse 47. that the conversion, and baptizing of Disciples being omitted, the joining or adding to the Church is put in the stead thereof, which proofs as they are omitted wholly in the printed Copy, so also you make no reply unto them.

Secondly, by these proofs it might easily have been seen that we did not look upon all the Apostles acts in this case of Baptism as extraordinary▪ but that their first and leading examples were ordinary, and in that order we plead for: which if it had been regarded, much labor had been saved in this dispute, which hath been spent to little purpose. And,

Our second Reason.

Reply.

In due order the seal • belong to them to whom the grant is given, but the grant is vouchsafed to the faithful, and their seed, forgiveness of sins, &c. and the benefits of the Covenant are so linked together, that where one is granted none is denied, &c.

Answ.

'It is true, the Seals belong to all them by a remote right to whom the grant is given, (as hath been oft said) but not immediate: yet in the very propounding of this reason we may observe two things that do cut the •• ewes of it. 1 The limitation of due order, which as hath been said can nowhere be found but in a particular Church. Let any show what order Christ hath put his Catholic visible Church into, or where that order is to be seen but in particular Churches, by which order everyone is bound to join to such Churches, as well as to partake in the outward Ordinances of God's worship, which are there only to be found. Secondly, it is granted that not only forgiveness of sins, but all other benefits of the Covenant of grace are linked together, and are the grant sealed up in the Sacrament; and if so, is not visible conjunction with Christ and his Church; with all the privileges of the Church, and ordinances of the same, part of that grant by the Covenant of grace, or of the Gospel? we suppose none would deny it, why then should not visible believers require, and take up this part of the grant, as well as the seal of it? for sigillum sequitur donum; let them take this gift and the seal is ready for them. And this may answer the first part of the Reply about Rom. 4. 11. as also all the rest which follows being things so oft repeated, and answered before, as make it tedious to all.

CHAP. XIIII.

Reply.

This question is much mistaken, for the demand is not, Whether in the Congregation matters should be carried by number of votes against God, as you interpret the position, but whether the power of excommunication so lie in the body of the Congregation as that sentence must proceed in externo foro, according to the vote and determination of the major part, and so in admissions of members, &c. and though they have no power against God, but for God, yet in execution of that power they may be divided in judgment, and one part must err▪ Now hence the question is moved, Whether the power he so in the people, that what the major part determine must stand.

Answ.

If our whole answer had been attended unto, it is so clear and full, that it could not with any show of reason be subject to such a mistake: To omit the first part of our answer affirmatively, wherein we cite Mr. Parker as consenting with him. In the second part to the position as stated, our answer is plainly negative, that excommunication is not so seated, neither ought to be so in any of the Churches of the Lord Jesus. What follows is our reason grounded upon the last clause of the position, because Churches ought to carry things not by number of votes against God (as this position implies) but by strength of Rule and Reason according to God, and for edification, 2 Cor. 13. 8. 2 Cor. 10. 8. Now let any judge whether the position doth not imply such an absurdity so oft as things should be carried by the major vote against the Officers, and the rest having better Reasons, and therefore we are apt to think that if the learned author had been so ready to embrace any syllable that lends to dislodge these thoughts of us as leaning to separation, he would have believed our plain negation of this position, which indeed is according to our constant practice never following the major part of votes against the Officers, but counting it the duty of the Officers in such cases either to satisfy the consciences of the major part (or lesser) by the rule of the word, or to yield not to the vote but reasons if they be stranger; or to suspend the business, and refer to the counsel of other Churches, if they cannot agree but a division arise according to the pattern, Act. 15.

Reply.

Amongst them that hold the power of the Keys to be given to the Church, some (as Fenner, Parker, I. D.) distinguish between the power it self which they give to the Church, and the execution which they confine to the Presbytery, others give the power of the Keys with the exercise thereof to the whole body of the Church; or if in the dispensation they attribute anything to the Officers, it is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority, and here lies the stone at which the Separation stumble, and which we conceive to be your judgment and practice, wherein we required your plain answer, but have received no satisfaction. You refer us to Mr. Parkers Reasons to prove the power of the Keys belong to the whole Church, who are of far differing judgment from him in the point it self, and if your judgment and practice be as the Separation (as we fear) you dissent from him and we from you in these considerations.

Answ.

We are sorry to see this Reverend man of God so strongly possessed with a prejudicate opinion and fear of our concurrence with the Separation: (upon what grounds it is not said, nor can we apprehend) That neither our flat negation of the position, nor our reference to Mr. Parker as concurring with him, should give him any satisfaction to the contrary. But if that be the judgment, and practice of the Separation which is here imputed unto them, viz. That the power and exercise of the Keys is in the body of the Church, and what the Officers do therein is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority; if our profession may be of any use to satisfy, we do freely, and heartily profess to the contrary: affirming that the authoritative power of transacting all things in the Church, is in the hands of the Officers who minister in the name and power of Christ to and over the Church, and that the power or liberty of the community whereby they may and ought to concur with their guides, so long as they rule in the Lord, is to be carried in a way of obedience unto them, and when upon just cause they dissent from them, still they are to walk respectfully towards them, and we think our brethren are not ignorant that Mr. Parker and Fenner give as much to the Church in excommunication, as we have pleaded for in any of our public writings. But seeing we are led by this learned author from this particular question about excommunication to that beaten controversy of the power of the Keys in general, and the first subject thereof, whereby we are forced to declare ourselves herein; we shall briefly glean up some few of our scattered apprehensions, as may most concern the case in hand.

1 There are divers Keys that are diversely distributed to several subjects in respect of execution, and therefore the question should have been first stated: and what Keys are denied to the people and appropriated to the Officers. And what to some Officers, not to others, should have been shown before Arguments were pressed.

2 The state of the Church being mixed of an Aristocracy to which belongs Office, and Democracy to which belongs privilege; hence the power of the Keys is twofold. 1 Officiall power. 2 Fraternall. The first belonging to the guides of the Church, the other to the fraternity thereof.

3 The official power of the Keys is a power to act with authority in the name of Christ ministerially in opening and shutting, binding and loosing, &c. In respect of which Office (while the Minister acts according to the will of Christ) he is over the Church in things properly Ecclesiastical, because he stands in the room of Christ, and comes in his name, and hence in those Church acts which are not proper to him, but common in some cases to the fraternity, yet there is an office-authority upon them, which is not upon the like acts materially done by others. Ex. gr. Any brother may and ought to exhort▪ and rebuke, 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 3. 13. Titus a Minister is exhorted to do the same thing, but with all authority, Titus 2. 15. some able and gifted, though not in Office, may occasionally open and apply the word, yet not with an Office-authority. But an Officer preacheth as an Ambassador of Christ, 2 Cor. 5. So also in admission of members, and casting out of offenders (wherein though the fraternity have a power whether in consenting or otherwise) yet they act obedientially in respect of their guides, declaring the rule, going before them in example, and commanding them (if need be) in the name of Christ to do his pleasure. But the Officers act in these things in the name and authority of him in whose room they stand, and hence we think that in case the fraternity without Officers should cast out any, yet it is not altogether the same with that which may be dispensed by the Officers thereof, it being no official act.

2 Fraternall power (in public Church acts) is a joint power of liberty or privilege (in some sense, & in some cases) to open, & shut; which power is not in any one or more severally; but in the whole jointly, for as they have power to combine, and so to receive others into the communion, so by like reason to shut out offenders from their communion; but thus they do fraternally, not officially: and as they have such a power of election of Officers to them, so they have also a fraternal power (due order being attended) to shut them out (when there is just cause) according to the common received rule, Cujus est instituere, ejusdem est & destituere.

These things which might be more fully explained and confirmed, we have only briefly set down both to wash off the blot of popular Government from the ways of Christ, as if all authority were taken from the Ministers, or nothing left them but to dispense the seals, and in all other things to sit merely as a moderator in the Churches of Christ, which we utterly disclaim.

And also to make way for our more clear answer to what is objected here in the Reply: We grant therefore the first argument and the conclusion thereof thus far, that the official power of the Keys was not given to the whole multitude, but only there is given to them a power to choose Officers, which Officers should execute the same.

Reply.

2 If Christ gave this power to the community, was it from the beginning of the Church, or took it effect after the Church was planted? Not the first, for then the Apostles themselves should derive their power from the community, which they did not.

Answ.

This reason is answered before (so far as concerns our tenent) in the second consideration, where it is alleged, to which we refer the Reader; neither do we say the official power is so given to the community, but such things as are here added, we shall consider so far as concerns us.

Reply.

The Apostles and other Governors were given of Christ to the Church as for their end, and all their authority was given unto them for the Church, as for the whole: but the authority it self was immediately derived from Christ, and is not in the Church as the immediate subject, nor derived from the Church, but from Christ the King of the Church. The authority of Governor is given of Christ for a gift to the Church, but not a gift absolute. That it may reside in the power of the whole Church, but for a conditional gift communicated to the Governors for the good of the whole. Parker, pol. lib. 3. cap. 8.

Answ.

1 Concerning the power of the Apostles, and extraordinary Officers we now dispute not, it was answered before; and for the authority of other Officers, we do not affirm that it is derived from the Church, but from Christ for the good of the Church; but if the question be of the application of an Office, and the power of it to such and such persons in the Church, we would demand whether Christ doth this to such a Pastor and Teacher immediately or mediately: if immediately, then their call is not (in this) different from Apostles, which Paul expressly distinguisheth Gal. 1. 1. Paul was an Apostle, not of man, nor by man, but of God, and by Jesus Christ; false Teachers are of man, and by man. True Pastors as Thomas, John, &c. are of God by man, and if Christ communicate this Office, and the authority annexed unto it mediately by man, not immediately, the question is, Who is the subject of this power to call, and so to apply this office in the name of Christ to this or that person, John, Thomas, &c. We hold this fraternal ministerial power (under Christ) is in the Church, and so far we shall defend this position, and where▪ ever it be else placed it will be subject to all the absurdities that are imputed to us. To the sentence of Parker we answer, that the misinterpreting one word of his sentence doth pervert his whole meaning, his words are Pro dono conditionali ut Rectoribus communicetur, i. e. that the Church might not communicate that power to Officers, nor keep it in her own hand. Or that it might be communicated from Christ by the Church. And this will appear his meaning, and it agrees with that position he holds so strongly, that the Church is the first subject of the Keys.

Reply.

After the Churches were established, it took not effect, for it is nowhere found in Scripture that Christ first committed this power to the Apostles, and after to the community; the Ministers and guides were immediately of Jesus Christ from whom immediately they derive their power and authority, by whom they are set over their charge, in whose name they execute their Office, &c. Yea Pastorship is the gift of Christ as well as Apostleship; and every Pastor is not immediately called, but the office and order of Pastors, the calling, authority and jurisdiction is immediately from Christ, not from the Church.

Answ.

First, the power of the Keys (in a right sense given to the Church) took effect from the beginning in Christ's institution, and in the frequent practice of the Church, as is shown before, and therefore this is needless to be proved, that it took effect after. Secondly, that Ministers and guides were immediately from Christ, (if you mean ordinary officers) and that every Pastor is not immediately called, seems to be a contradiction: the places, Act. 28. 8. Ephes. 4. 8. &c. do not prove that all Officers are immedately from Christ, though they be set in the Church by Christ and over the Church by the Holy Ghost, &c. This the Lord can do, and doth do by the means of his Church walking according to his rule and institution, and therefore you must come at last home to our tenent, (as here you do) that Pastorship, the office, power, jurisdiction, &c. annexed to it, is immediately from Christ, viz. by his institution in the Gospel: but Pastors everyone that receive this office, hath it from Christ, but by his Church calling them to the same, and in the name of Christ applying it to them: and thus far we agree with you.

Reply.

The Steward is appointed of the Master of the family alone, and hath all his authority from him. Every Embassador in the cause of his Embassage doth immediately depend upon him from whom he is sent: but if the function, order and authority of Pastors and Teachers be immediately from Christ, then it is not received from the Church as the immediate receptacle.

Answ.

Answ. First, though Pastors in respect of the exercise of their function dispense the Word and other Mysteries of Christ as from him immediately, and so are fitly compared to Ambassadors and Stewards, yet in the call of the one and other to that work there is a plain dissimilitude, the one being called Mediately, the other Immediately by their Masters, and therefore in this case it proves nothing.

What doth this argument conclude? if only that the function and order is not from the Church as the first subject, we readily grant it; if the application of the office to such a person, (so far as may be done by an outward call) it follows not at all, for the function and office may be from Christ, and the application thereof by the Church.

Reply.

Thus Protestant Divines dispute against Papists, if Bishops receive their power and authority of exercising immediately from Christ by Mandate, Mission and commission from him, then not from the Pope, and so for Presbyters in regard of the Bishop.

Answ.

The reason and ground of that dispute is because the Pope claims a plenitude of power from Peter, whence all must see derived to all Bishops, &c. be they never so orderly chosen and ordained in their own esteem, and so indeed usurps the Prerogative of Christ the head of the Church. The like usurpation •• its degree was in the Bishops over Presbyters: But here the case is far different, the Church claming no such power, but only Ministerial in the outward call of officers according to his direction, and so the application of that office unto the persons, which hath sufficient ground of Scripture from Christ, and therefore we grant the conclusion. viz. That they derive not their power from the people, but from Christ: by means of the Church Ministerially and instrumentally applying that office to them, whereunto Christ hath annexed that power. Lastly the like argument may be objected against any other subject of this power you can or will suppose, even the Presbytery it self.

Reply.

It is usually objected that the Church cannot convey what she never had: but the people may elect their Pastor.

Whereunto the answer is direct and plain, nothing can give that it had not formally or virtually, unless it give it as an instrument ministering to one that hath it, but so it may give what it never had, nor is capable of. A Steward may give all the offices in his Masters house as ministerially executing his Masters pleasure.

Answ.

This answer doth not satisfy, for we cannot put off our old principles of Reason, that every instrument ministering to the principal cause doth Confer vim ad effectum: and so far, or in what sense it gives anything to the effect in that sense, and so far it must needs have virtually or formally the same in itself. If a Conduit convey water ministerially from the fountain to the house, it hath water in such a sense, as it doth concur to the effect: and so the Church cannot give the Keys to the Officers as an instrument of Christ, but it must be granted she received them from Christ virtually to give them to the Officer. Secondly, for the instance; if it be meant of a Steward giving the offices to such persons as his Master hath named thereunto, and he instals them into the same, the case is not alike yet, here he must have some power and authority so to do so that he hath these offices virtually in his hand, but if it be his Masters will, he shall choose what persons he sees fit according to rules given him, (which is the case here) then he hath this power virtually in his hand.

Reply.

Thirdly, if Ecclesiastical and spiritual power be in the multitude and community of the faithful, the Church doth not only call, but make Officers out of power and virtue received into her self, and then should the Church have a true Lord like power in regard of her Ministers.

Answ.

If there be any such that hold the Church hath so the power of the Keys in her self, as that she may derive from her self authority to the Officers, let such look unto the conclusion; as for Mr. Robinson, though we do not approve the sentences you cite out of him, yet we doubt whether you do not go beyond his sense & meaning: but according to our sense of this position before laid down, neither this absurdity of Lordship over the Officers, nor any others that are instanced in, under this reason do at all follow; and they may be as strongly urged against the Presbyteries, Classes, Synods, Catholic Church, or any subject of the Keys that can be named: And the objection, viz. That God will have the Church choose Officers to execute the power committed to her, is so answered in the same page, as will serve us as well as you, viz. God will have her elect Officers of his designment (that is, such as the rule directs her to choose) to do his work according to that Power which he hath given them, and by his direction, and then they are God's servants and not the Churches, and receive that charge and function immediately from God, and not from the people; we mean no otherwise then by that outward call instrumentally applying that Office unto them; and in this sense we close with you herein: and indeed this power of electing Officers doth not ever include authority over them whom they choose, but rather willing subjection unto them, and setting them up to rule; as when a woman chooseth a husband, she makes him her husband in a sort, but withal her head and ruler; so when a people choose a Major, &c.

Reply.

Fourthly, if the Power of the Keys be given first and immediately to the community of the faithful, what reason can be alleged why in defect of Officers the Church might not rule, feed, bind, loose, preach, and administer Sacraments; or if any fail in Office, why she might not supply that want by her power, for the power of the Keys doth contain both authority and exercise, power being given that it may be exercised, as it is vouchsafed: but the Church cannot exercise these acts of rule. Ergo.

Answ.

The reason is, because the Church hath not received some of the Keys formally but only virtually, and (as was said out of Parker ) not as a gift absolute but conditional, that it might be communicated to the Officers. Such power as the body of the Church hath received formally she may and doth exercise, as a power of choosing Officers, a power of judging in censures, 1 Cor. 5. 12. and the like, the power of preaching properly so called & dispensing Sacraments, &c. being acts of authority, the Church hath them only virtually, and therefore must choose Officers, to whom Christ her Lord hath given authority in the Church. A Corporation that by Patent from the King hath many Privileges, the power is given to the Body incorporated, and so it is the first subject of it, yet many acts cannot be put forth, but by Officers duly chosen: and so here.

Reply.

For these Reasons (not to insist on anymore) we judge the community of the faithful, not to be the immediate receptacle of ecclesiastical authority, and so the Power of excommunication, not to belong unto them.

Answ.

By this conclusion it appears that how ever the author began professedly against us as Separatists in this point, yet he follows the cause against Mr. Parker, with whom he seems to be friends. Secondly, the power of excommunication may belong to the Church or community in respect of a fraternal power of judging, though official authority be not formally given to the Church but to the Officers.

Reply.

If consent of Churches be asked in this point, to omit others, the Churches of Scotland speak fully and expressly for us in the second book of Discip. Cap. 1. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spiritual functions in the Congregation of them that profess the truth, hath a certain power granted of God according to which it useth a proper jurisdiction, &c. Beza de Presb. pag. 60. Helv. Confess. Cap. 18. Belgic, &c.

Answ.

If consent of the learned, godly, and zealous reformers were asked, a cloud of witnesses might be produced that hold the Church the first subject of the Keys, as Fulke, Whitaker, Parker, Peter Martyr, Musculus and others, besides many of the ancient Divines and Councils, Gerson and the Parisian Divines well known to the learned concerning quotation of the Scottish discipline, the first words lay so weak a foundation as leave the building ready to fall, in these words. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spiritual functions hath a certain power, &c. but where is the Church so taken? not in all the New Testament that can be proved with any solid Reason, notwithstanding all wrestling of men to find it out; but generally for the company of the faithful, either the universal or particular Church; and this sometime considered with her Officers: and divers times as distinguished from them, as Acts 14. 23. and 20. 13. 28. Jam. 5. 14. Revel. 2. 1. 8. 12. &c. but never contra, for the Officers distinguished from the Church or body of the Congregation; and therefore if the Keys be given to the Church, and the plea of the power of the Keys to be given immediately to the Officers be in and under the name of the Church, it will fall to the Church of the faithful, if the Scripture may judge: indeed among the Papists, and so the Prelates, the Clergy have long got and held possession of the name of the Church, but the testament of Christ will not bear this foundation, but we will not trouble the Reader farther about human testimonies.

CHAP. XV.

Reply.

It is one thing abruptly to break away when and whither they please, and forsake fellowship another thing, not to depart or remove habitation unless the Congregation will give leave; also it is one thing mutually to compound and agree, not to depart from each other without consent and approbation, and other to require a promise of all that be admitted into society that they shall not depart without the Churches allowance, if such a promise be required of all members to be admitted, we cannot discern upon what grounds your practice is warranted.

Answ.

We are still enforced to clear our answer from mistakes, for it seems the answer left it doubtful, whether we do not hold the position affirmatively, and in practice require such a promise as a part of our Church Covenant of all that are admitted, and therefore to clear the case more fully we shall first mind the Reader with the true meaning of the answer, and then add what is needful to take away the scruples; and first the answer saith, that we judge it expedient and most according to rule, that brethren should not forsake fellowship, &c. but in removals approve themselves, &c. Now this is far short of what the position affirms; for first, that none are to be admitted without such a promise, includes a necessity; the answer speaks only of expediency and agreeableness to rule, not to break off abruptly. Secondly, the Position affirms the necessity of a promise; the answer speaks only of the case in practice, as in many cases besides, for the watch of the Church reacheth to such particular acts of which we make no promise express in the entrance. Thirdly, the Position speaks of the Churches leave, the answer acknowledgeth only that brethren removing should approve themselves to do that which is lawful, and take counsel in such weighty affairs. By all which it appears that we do not own this position, in judgment nor practice, and therefore in effect our answer doth deny the same, and is negative. Secondly, if the words of the answer be not full enough: (because we see our brethren here run upon it as a question if such a promise be required, and Mr. Rutherford and others take it up as a confessed practice) we do therefore clearly and plainly deny the position and affirm that we do not think that none are to be admitted without such a promise; neither is there any such practice in our admissions of members to require such a promise; we only count such removals (especially of families) an action amongst many others whereunto the watch of the Church doth extend, to prevent sin where there is any just ground of suspicion thereof, and to further the best good of such as are under our charge by counsel, prayers, &c. If any Minister and people of old acquaintance and dear affection, or any other Christians cleaving together in love have privately resolved or agreed together, not to part from each others in any Church, it is the most that we have taken knowledge of, and we think that hath been very rare, but for any such public promise, Covenant, or Church oath, (as some straining things to the height have called it) it is not, nor hath been required or practiced amongst us: this being so, there needs no grounds of that which we practice not.

Reply.

First, you exclude all such as be not set members from the seals, and yet hinder them from entrance into the Church society, because they cannot promise continuance in the place they are resident in for the present; here we, desire to be satisfied by the word of God by what you require it, &c.

Answ.

First, We deny not but divers may and do forbear to join because of their unsettledness in the place of their present abode.

Secondly, It may be in some cases, some may be advised by the counsel of their private friends in a Church to forbear till they be some way settled. But that any are debarred from Communion when they desire it, because they cannot promise continuance, (unless other just causes hinder) it neither suites with our judgment nor practice; and if any should practice other ways, we do not allow of the same, and therefore it's needless to give you reasons of what we practice not.

Reply.

Secondly, It pertains not to the whole Congregation to take notice or be acquainted with or judge of every particular members removal: may not a servant remove from his Master to another Congregation, or a father bestow his child in marriage to one of another Congregation, but the whole Church must be called to counsel in the matters, &c. when Churches grow populous they must be negligent or weary of such a ta • ke, and for the present to challenge so much authority over one another is usurpation, &c.

Answ.

If our answer were but attended, such apprehensions of our practice of calling the whole Church to counsel in every such case, and all that follows might be spared. For thus we say, We judge it expedient, &c. That none forsake fellowship and abruptly break off, &c. This doth not imply a necessity of calling the whole Church to counsel in every plain and easy case; many times, and for the most part such removals are so plain and free from suspicion of abrupt breaking off or forsaking fellowship, that there is no need of counsel, as in case of servants marriages, &c. and therefore no trouble to the Church: and in some removal of families also, the case is clear, and openly carried in the knowledge of many of the Church, none scruple it, and therefore at the first demand of dismission or letters of recommendations, the same are granted: but in removal of some members, and in the manner of the same, there are such difficulties and dangers as need the prayers and counsel of the Officers and whole Church, (as is confessed after) nor do we say, it pertains to the whole Church to be called to counsel and judge of every particular members removal, for they may approve themselves to the consciences of all mediately by advising with some who may satisfy the rest, if need be.

Reply.

Let it be shown, that ever by divine right, this power was committed to the Church, and we will confess it expedient, but till then, we think the Church over rigid, and the members busiebodies, &c.

Answ.

The rule of love whereby we are bound to exhort, admonish, seek the edification and good one of another▪ and that not only in general (as of all Christians) but as members of so near relation in one Church body, who are bound to serve the Lord with one shoulder, Zeph. 3. 9. and to uphold the worship of Christ therein, as this doth reach to all the actions and ways of one another, so in a special manner to such an action as this i • : and we think this ground is sufficient to satisfy our practice as we have declared, which may wipe off the aspersion of being rigid or busiebodies.

Reply.

In the multitude of counselors is peace, but over-many counsellors oft causeth distractions, and different apprehensions breed delays.

Answ.

We grant it may do so, neither do we bring all cases to public like counsel, but the case may be such as needs the public counsel of all, and as we have a gracious promise of the presence of Christ in his Churches who is the counselor: so we confess to his praise, that we find the judgment of a Church of Saints in matters orderly carried, and gathered up from the various gifts of wisdom, grace, and experience of many Christians (when need is) to be a blessed privilege of God's people to enjoy, and sanctified oft to the great good of his Saints, and being neglected and slighted hath been oft followed with sad events.

Reply.

The nature of your Church-Covenant inferreth not a necessity of bringing every such business to the Church; for you bind yourselves mutually to watch one over another, &c. but this essentially tieth not any man to a perpetual residence in one place, for then even occasional absence should be a breach of Covenant, without consent of the Church.

Answ.

We grant, our Church-Covenant neither requires every business to come to public counsel, nor perpetual residence in one place: neither is it so held by us in judgment or practice.

Reply.

You say you bind yourselves to no new duties, but in the word of truth, it is not required neither directly nor by consequence, that no member of a Church should remove or occasionally be absent from his habitation before he have acquainted the Church whither he goeth, and on what occasions, &c.

Answ.

It cannot but grieve us to see how the Replier still not content to take all things in the harshest sense, but will also wind in other matters into his discourse, which may make our practice seem far more rigid then it is. First, he urges us as if we brought all cases of remove and the occasions thereof, as marriages, &c. to the counsel of the whole Church. Secondly, he would by consequence infer the like of occasional absence, and now he weaves in that also, as if it were practiced by us to require men to acquaint the Church with the place whither they go, and the occasions of their occasional absence, which is far from us.

Reply.

And if such business must be determined on the Lord's Day, &c.

Answ.

We deny not but the best Churches through weakness and temptation may spend too much time in the most necessary administrations of censures or other affairs: but to possess the world with such fears upon so little ground may argue the authors charity concerning our wisdom and Christian care of the Sabbath was not very great.

Reply.

As for the Covenant it self, &c. but if ye contstrain men to meddle with things that belong not to them, and wind them up higher then God, would, and strain everything to the pitch you seem here to do, a godly sober mind may well pause before he make such a promise.

Answ.

If the author had not strained and aggravated things beyond our meaning in the answer, and our practice, this would not have come to so high a pitch to trouble a sober godly mind: we are persuaded that generally sober godly minds, that have their pride and self-willednesse in any good measure mortified, do count the yoke of Christ (according to our practice of this point) to be both easy and profitable; neither do we require such a promise of any (as was said) but if any stumble at the fourth branch of the first reason from the nature of the Covenant, let us a little here clear that scruple: when we reason from the nature of the Covenant, and branch our reason into four things, it is not to be so taken, as if everyone of those four things were made a distinct promise in our solemn Covenant, for the fourth is but an inference from the three former, as is easy to observe and indeed it was never made by us a part of the Covenant or a distinct promise of it, either in our judgment or practice. If because we extend our watch to the removals of brethren, it be taken for granted that we require such a promise; it will no more follow, then that we require promises in admissions in a thousand cases to which our watch also extends.

Reply.

If any shall not meddle with every business of this kind, as questioning whether it do belong to him or no, or not ask the advise of the whole society, as knowing the most be unfit to counsel in such a case, doth he break his Covenant therein, and so commit a sin in a sort like the sin of Ananias and Sapphira? Judge yourselves if in other cases you would not censure this to be an high encroachment upon Christian liberty, and a strict binding of men's consciences by human constitutions.

Answ.

To extend our watch so far as hath been said unto these cases of removals from a Church, to prevent sin in abrupt breaking off and forsaking fellowship, and to prevent the hurt and damage which the sheep of Christ oft fall into in their unadvised breaking out of the fold the Lord hath placed them in, and to further their best good in their removals; whatever is thought of it, we count it no breach of Christian liberty, but a privilege of the Saints to be under such a watch, and therefore if any shall neglect any duty that one owes to another, (so far as it tends necessarily to those ends) we may well reckon it as a neglect of our Covenant; but because it is offensive to compare this with the sin of Ananias, &c. we entreat our reverend brethren and the Christian Reader to consider, that in the answer, this stands in the third thing noted in the nature of the Covenant, and hath reference to the duties of the Covenant in general, and is not applied to this particular case by us, nor well appliable in the manner here expressed. Secondly, it is moderated in the answer which saith (in some sort he shall commit that sin.) If these things do not satisfy, we wish it expunged, or any other seeming harshness, rather then offense be given to any. Lastly, that you may not impute unto us the infringement of Christian liberty herein, we would acquaint all men with these two things. First, that removals from one town and Church to another and from full to new Plantations, are frequently practiced amongst us, with consent and approbation. Secondly, that we find in experience, that as there is in sheep a wandering disposition, so in this large Wilderness, (wherein the Lord hath exercised his people with various temptations, by liberties, by offers of large outward accommodations, by wants and straights, by various opinions vented by Satan and his instruments, &c.) In these respects the Sheep of Christ are so subject many times to outrunnings, that we find more then ordinary need of care and wisdom in this point of our watch in many cases; and many that have broke loose from the counsels of their officers, friends, and of the Church, have deeply smarted for it; How sad a case is it when some brainsicke master of a family, transported with a fancy, an odd opinion, will needs carry his whole family with himself to the grief and hazard of his godly wife and hopeful children, &c. from all Ordinances of Christ to a people full of fanatical errors! were it Christian liberty, or dangerous licentiousness to leave such a man to his own counsels, and not meddle with him?

Reply.

May you not hear from your own grounds, that herein you have devised an expedient or necessary rite or custom to prevent the dissolution of the body, which never came into he mind of the Lord Jesus the Savior of his body, and in so doing (if your exposition hold good) you break the second Commandment; and so press customs only expedient for the time as standing rules necessary for all times and all persons, to put that authority into the hands▪ of men which God never put upon them, to oblige men to meddle in the affairs of men beyond warrant, to bind consciences under so heavy • penalty as that of Ananias and Sapphira, where God hath not bound them, to debar approved Christians from the seals, because they cannot promise as seiled members to abide in the society, and yet charge them as men that against light refuse subjection to the Gospel, this is that which we cannot approve, which yet we suspect will follow from your judgment, and desire to be resolved in your practice.

Answ▪

Here is a greater heap of heavy criminations gathered together and cast upon us, upon very weak grounds, upon mistakes, suspicions, and (we fear) too much credulity given to some clamorous persons, returning to England, and too little credit given to our true relations and faithful professions: most of these have been cleared in the former passages where we met with them, and we marvel how they come in so twisted together here again; we shall here only clear ourselves of the first, and refer the Reader to their proper places to see our answer to the others.

Here it is imputed unto us that we have devised a rite to preserve the unity and prevent the dissolutions of the body, which we conceive is intended of this promise of not removal without leave, which promise is not required of us nor made in our Church Covenant, (as we have said) and the ground of this imputation is also a mere mistake arising from the confounding of a second answer to the objection against our first reason, with the second reason of our practice, which are distinct and have a different▪ scope, for whereas some might object, that this reason from the Covenant, holds with such as grant such a Covenant lawful, the answer saith that some indeed question the necessity of it: but we hope you do not question the lawfulness, and thereupon the answer first gives reasons and proofs of the lawfulness of it. And secondly, for the necessity which is taken from the nature of all societies incorporate, which by a fundamental rule, do require of all that enter into them, and partake of the privileges thereof, to conform to all such lawful rites and orders as are expedient for the well being of that society; the contrary whereof would be injurious to him to offer, and confusion in them to accept; and from hence it easily follows, that a Church being a body of a people enjoying privileges together, it is necessary fundamentally that they should be joined in some promise or Covenant, which Covenant (though in civil societies it may consist in rites and orders devised by themselves for their good) yet in the Church which is the body of Christ, this Covenant is no other but to perform the duties required in the Gospel towards God and one another, without any rites or order, devised by themselves, as we professed in setting forth the nature of the Covenant; and this being the true scope of those words, let any judge what ground is given by us of such an imputation of devising rites, &c. Neither doth the second reason in the answer give any ground of this imputation; for though it dispute from the necessary ruin of the Church, and all Churches, if it were lawful for any member when, whither and wherefore he please to depart from the Church without consent: yet there is not one syllable that gives an hint of any rite, custom or order devised by us, to prevent the same, but for the avoiding thereof we still wholly and only bind ourselves to the rule of the Word, to direct, order, and reform all actions of this nature, and to show unto men whether they may lawfully remove or not remove, not requiring any express promise to the contrary in this particular no more then in others; and thus we hope we have resolved you of our practice, as you desired. To conclude this passage, give us leave without offense to say thus much.

Although (through the grace of Christ▪) we desire humbly to submit to this part of our trial, even to go through evil report as well as good, yea all the reproaches and cruel mockings of the world, knowing that we have deserved much more from the hand of that God without whose providence a tongue could not move against us; yet we cannot but account it one of our poorest afflictions to suffer in this kind, from the pens or tongues of our dearly beloved brethren, for whom we daily pray, and to whom we hope we shall never be provoked to return any other language then savouring of love and respect. But we must confess we meet with so many sore criminations, (oft upon mere mistakes) cast not only upon ourselves, but the truth and ways of God, which we profess, and that both by this learned author and some others, that we cannot be so senseless of the dishonor is reflected upon the truth of God herein, as wholly to be silent, and groan out the grief of our spirits to him that knoweth our hearts: wherefore we humbly beseech all our godly brethren, to bear with us a little, if after all the harsh passages of this Reply, such an heap of accusations as are here thrown upon us▪ move us to present to the Reader a short view of such things as are unjustly and ungroundedly cast upon us, and which we cannot but think hath drawn a black cloud over the glory of the holy Discipline of Christ which he hath here set up among us.

To omit the general frame of this Reply, in presenting our opinions and ways to the people as if we concurred generally with those of the Rigid separation, and differed almost in everything from such godly brethren as have breathed after purity of Ordinances and Reformation.

To omit also the frequent inserting of such terms unto our questions and arguments contrary to the true state thereof, which render everything harst and full of rigidness to the ears of the Reader as have been observed by us.

And omitting also divers other suppositions and objections, we shall only desire those who have taken up evil thoughts concerning these Churches and the ways of Christ we walk in from this Reply, to note these particular imputations in this short Chapter, and upon what grounds they are built.

As page 79. That we hinder men from entrance into Church society, because they cannot promise continuance in the Place▪ and running upon this strain he saith:

Was it ever heard of in the Church of God from the beginning thereof unto this day, that any such thing was propounded unto and required of members, to be admitted into Church fellowship? Here is a loud outcry, and who would not think but that we usually propound and require such a thing in our admissions, (which yet is nothing so.) But what is the ground of all this? Look a little before and he saith, If such a promise be required.

Again ibidem saith he, we think the Church is over-rigid in exacting such a condition of the members, and the members go beyond their measure as busy bodies, and what is the ground? It follows, If they arrogate such a power to themselves.

So page next 80. In the word it is not commanded that no member should remove or occasionally be absent from the place of his habitation before he have acquainted the congregation whither he goeth, on what occasion, &c. To what end is this inserted if not to suggest that there is such a practice among us that a man may not occasionally be absent, &c. which is far from us? And what is the ground see a few lines after, The Church shall burden herself, &c. If she take upon her to intermeddle in all such occasions.

And immediately after, we fear the time appointed for religious exercises should be profaned by unseasonable disputes.

But what is the ground of this fear conceived and published to the world, viz. If such businesses must be determined on the Lord's day? and that before the Ordinances, &c. because it seems Robinson in case of some notorious obstinate offender, would have some censure passed to prevent pollution of an Ordinance; and is this ground sufficient?

Again in the same page (for these things are thick sown) Herein, saith he, you have devised an expedient or necessary rite or custom to preserve unity, &c. but if you seek a ground it will be found a mistake▪ • s is shown before, and contrary to the express profession of the Answer, That we promise no new duties, but only such as the Gospel requires of all Saints in Church order, much less do we set up new rites and customs.

And as if all these particular imputations in the compass of one leaf were two little, Page next 81. we have a whole Catalogue gathered together from other places and this, that by laying things together the odium▪ raised might stick the deeper: for thus the words are, But to press customs expedient for the time as standing rules, necessary at all times and all persons; To put authority in the hands of men which God never put upon them, and to oblige them to intermeddle; To bind the consciences of men, and that upon so heavy a penalty as the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, where God hath not bound it▪ To debar known Christians from the seals, because they cannot promise to abide in the Church as settled members; and yet charge them in the mean season against light to refuse subjection to the Gospel. Concerning all which we do not know any of them to be true, nor approve any such thing in any, if it should be found among us. And what is the ground of all this? Truly weak enough (as hath been shown in our discourse) and here it is the suspicion of the Author, for thus he adds, This is that we cannot approve, and yet we suspect will follow from your judgment.

These things we have thus briefly presented in one view not to dishonor the learned and reverend Author, whose memory we honor; two things we charitably take notice of, to remove over hard thoughts of him: First, we consider his spirit might be over grieved and provoked to this harshness by the withdrawings of many Christians from the Ordinances of God because dispensed according to the corrupt Liturgy, in which cause he stood too far engaged, and supposing New-England ways the cause of it, he was the more sharp.

Secondly, we consider that this Reply was not intended by him to be published to the world, but to be sent unto us, and therefore he is in our hearts the less blamable.

But seeing these things are now published, and the harshness thereof may do much hurt, we were pressed to clear ourselves, wherein if anything▪ reflect upon the Author or Publishers, we cannot avoid it.

Neither do we write thus as if we would wholly justify ourselves and all the particular miscarriages that happily at one time or other, in some Church or other may have happened; we have much cause to humble ourselves before our God and abase ourselves to the dust before men, for all the weaknesses, sins, errors and miscarriages that have been found among us, in one kind and another.

Only this we may profess before the Lord and his people, that in the main scope of our hearts and endeavors of our lives we have sought after such a form of worship, and frame of discipline, as we could conceive by the Word of God and the help of the best Reformers to be according to the will of Christ, not allowing ourselves in any evil discovered unto us, but bewailing our great defects in all.

Reply.

And here we crave leave to put you in mind of what you have considered already. That the Church and every member have entered into Covenant, to take God for their God, &c. but we never find that they were called to give account of the work of grace wrought in their souls, or that the whole Congregation were to be judge thereof. You stand here all this day (saith Moses) before the Lord your God, &c. that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God. All that were borne in the wilderness Joshua circumcised, but it is uncredible to think there was none that did not give good testimony of the work of grace, &c.

Because it is a principal thing, especially in the builders of the Church, to know their materials, and because the reverend and learned Author steps somewhat out of his way to call us to give answer in this controversy of such great weight, (especially in this present turn of times) we shall therefore gladly accept of this occasion to declare ourselves, with as much brevity as we may, to the two branches of the question.

Qu.

First, Whether the members of the Church are called to give an account of the work of grace at there admission thereunto.

Answ. 1.

Secondly, Whether the whole Church is to be judge hereof.

Whether the members of the Church be called, &c.

For answer to which we shall express ourselves in these particulars, to prevent mistakes. First, that the question is not of what may keep a Church already constituted from being accounted no Church, but of what is to be required of such as join unto a Church, for a Church may be a true Church, and yet be very corrupt, (as is generally observed by Protestant writers, hath out of the examples of some Churches in the New Te •• ament, and that of the Old in the great Apostasy thereof) we think (in this same) Doctor Fields expressions may be safely received: Some profess Christ (saith he) but not wholly and entirely, as Heretics: some profess the whole saving truth, but not in unity, as Schismatics: some profess it in untie, but not in sincerity, as prophaine persons and Hypocrites: some in unity and sincerity: all these are partakers of the heavenly calling by profession of the truth, and consequently in some degree and sort the Church &c. But (we think that (this is no argument, that either Heretics, Schismatics, profane persons, or Hypocrites (if convictively discovered that such are meet matter to be joined to a Church.

Secondly, when a work of grace is required and desired of those who are to join to a Church, the meaning is not as if we allowed none to be of the Church, but real Saints, and such as give demonstrative evidence of being members of the invisible Church; for we profess (according to the Scripture and general doctrine of all reformed Churches (what ever their practice be) that it is not real, but visible faith, not the inward being, but the outward profession of faith, (whence men are called visible Saints) that constitutes a visible Church, which faith so professed is called visible, not in the judgment of certainty, from such infallible signs of it, as may demonstrate the hidden being of it within; but in the judgment of charity which hopes the best. (1 Cor. 12▪ 7) in the weakest Christian and meanest profession, even when it sometimes fears the worst, and is not able at the present, to convince the contrary.

Thirdly this judgment of charity (concerning the truth of another's profession, or that which is called the work of grace) is to be regulated by the word, which Christ hath left as a complete rule, not only of faith but also of love, and charity to guide both in their acts unto their ends: and hence large professions and long relations of the work of grace (though full of exceeding glory, when humbly and prudently made) we exact not rigorously and necessarily of all, because the rule of charity directs us not so to judge; because many Christians may be drawn to Christ, and have a seed of faith, yet may sometimes not know it, sometimes remember not the working of it, sometimes (through bashfulness, fear, want of parts, nor not trained up under a knowing Ministry) not be able to profess it so fully and clearly; hence also to keep out others from Communion out of groundless fears, that all their profession might be in hypocrisy, we allow not, because no man in his charity is to be ruled by his fears, but by the word; hence also to account any unfit for the Church, because their hearts cannot close with them, or because they like not their spirits, speak not with favor or any such like principles, and yet can give no rule or convicting argument from the word, why thus they do, we think is rigou • , not charity regulated by the word; for human charity doth not make God's Church, but such persons which from God according to the rule of God's charity, is to receive, and therefore the rule is to be attended here: it is necessary to look for a ground of certainty to faith, but not for charity, which cannot be infallibly▪ certain of another's estate, and therefore upon a hopeful supposition that the premises their profession is true, hopefully only makes the conclusion.

The question • eing brought to this narrow, it will here lie, viz.

First, Whether profession of the work of grace, and faith be not required of those that enter into the Church.

Secondly, With what profession of the work of grace, charity (according to a rule) is to rest satisfied.

[ 1] The first we think is writ with the beams of the Sun, for it is evident, that neither the Lord in the Old Testament, Exod. 19. or in the New Testament, Acts▪ 2. and in other like Scriptures, did call for a profession of the Doctrine of faith only, but especially of the work of faith; for when the Lord promised to be a God to his people, Exd. 19. Deut. 29. it was not with this condition, if they did believe his word to be true, &c. but if they will hear his voice, and keep his Covenant, which (in a prepared people) is a manifestation of a work of grace. So when the Apostles were required to go preach to all Nations, and baptize them and teach them, look as they did require such a faith as was saving, (he that believeth shall be saved) so upon the▪ profession thereof they did receive them, as also appears, Acts 2. 38. (which therefore could not be of the doctrine of faith, for that the devils do, and tremble, and profane men of much knowledge, may do, and yet unfit to be received, and therefore it was of the work of faith, and therefore Act. 8. 37. Philip not only requires faith, but a believing with all the heart of the Eunuch, and upon such a profession baptized him: and hence the Churches erected by the Apostles at Corinth, Colossae, Ephesus, &c. are called Saints, and sanctified of God in Christ Jesus, &c. How! was it because debito and de jure only, they should be so? then all who hear the Gospel (though they reject it) might be called a Church, for de jure, they ought to be so; Or was it because there were some that were truly such amongst them, and so in concreto, are called a Church and body of Christ? not only so, for there may be some visible Churches of visible Saints, and yet none among them of the invisible Church, unless any will think, that to be of the Church invisible is essential to the being and title of a visible Church: and therefore it was from their profession of saving faith which they maintained being a Church, as it was required to the gathering into a Church: John the Baptist also, (though he baptized none into a new Church, (and therefore might require the less) yet as he really promised remission of sins by the Messiah, so he required that very faith and repentance which might make them partakers of this heavenly benefit; and therefore, if what he required, they manifested by their profession, and confession of sins, it was not only to believe the doctrine of faith, but a saving work of faith which they held forth. And therefore it is not an outward profession of faith, according to a Creed which is required, for then a Papist is fit matter for a Church, nor willingness to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments, for then heaps of profane persons are to be received into the Church, but it's profession of a work, and saving work of grace, which being ever required in the purest times, is no novel invention of some more rigidly inclined in these things.

[ 2] To the second, with what profession (charity, according to rule) is to rest satisfied?

We answer, that there is a breadth in charity according to rule and profession of faith being but testimonium humanum, or a man's own testimony concerning himself, therefore as in the most eminent profession, potest subesse falsum, there may be hypocrisy latent, (it being no divine testimony) so in the weakest profession of the work of faith, potest subesse verum, id est, there may be truth in the bottom: hence (man leaving all secrets to God) the work of grace wherewith charity is to be satisfied, is one of these two. First, either with that which is only verbal, and appears to be false by conviction from the word: Or secondly, with that which appears to be real, which however it may be false, yet it is beyond the power of man to convince (by a rule) that so it is. We confess we are fearful as of opening the door too wide, so of shutting the doors upon any whom God would have us to receive in, but for what yet we see or read, from the arguments here alleged in this Author, or the writings of others godly learned: we think that Church charity is not to rest satisfied with the first, but with the latter; for let the profession of the work of faith be▪ never so short, or so weak, let it be by their own immediate relation or by question, yet if it may but appear to a regulated charity so as to hope that it is real, it is to rest satisfied then, till God make discovery to the contrary; we intend not to heap up arguments, nor answer scruples, but these four things seem to evince as much.

1 That the Apostles in the 3000. converted Acts 2. as they were very ready to receive them to the fold of Christ, and therefore in one day immediately received so many thousands (which could not be by large profession of everyone) so also they attended to the truth of that profession, and therefore it was not bare profession of faith, but (as it is set down for our pattern) it was such a profession as was evidently joined with humiliation, pricking at the heart, mourning, and crying out before the Apostles What shall we do▪ to be saved, gladly receiving the word, which are real testimonies of some real change from what they were but a little before, and upon this ground the Apostles received them.

2 The Apostles charge to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3. 5. From such as have a form of godliness and deny the power of it, turn away; if bare profession were sufficient, why should Timothy turn from them? (but rather receive them who had a form of profession.) And if it was in his power to avoid them, why should he not reject them, and that not only from private but Church communion also, supposing them such as not o ney had a form, but might be by a rule convinced thereof?

3 Lying and apparent untruth cannot make a man fit matter for a Church, and therefore cannot be a ground for charity to rest on, that so he is: but verbal profession, which appears not to be real but false, is palpable lying, and indeed more fit to destroy the Church then to make the Church. Hence Sanctius in Zach▪ 14. 14▪ observes that the greatest enemies of the Church are such, qui eum fidem retineant sanctitatem abj • cerunt.

4 If bare profession of faith is a sufficient ground to receive men into the Church, then an excommunicate person cast cut in one hour should be immediately received in again, if he will but renew his general profession of faith; nay they the Indians in Maryland, who will put on and put off this profession, as their ghostly fathers the Popish Priests will bestow or withhold garments and shirts upon them; should in charity be received into the Church.

But if it should be asked how charity may know the reality of this profession, we answer; so long as the rule be attended we leave everyone to the wisdom of Christ, to make▪ application thereof, only this we do add in general for more full satisfaction.

1 Such a faith professed with the mouth, which is confirmed by an innocent godly conversation in the life, so as not to live in commission of any known sin, or omission of any known duty, we say this conversation makes faith appear real, James 2. 18. Rev. 22. 14. we conceive more is required to make a man appear a fit member of a Church, then of a Commonwealth, to be only bonus civis, and bare civility is sufficient for this latter, but not for the former, and therefore such a profession of faith is needful, as is confirmed by a not only a civil, but a godly life.

2 Such a faith as is joined with evident repentance, and sorrow, and mourning for sin (although there be no experience always of such a holy life antecedently seen) for thus it was Act. 2. 37, 38. for the riches of Christ's grace is such as not only to receive experienced Christians into his family and house, but also the weakest and poorest (who may stand in most need of Christ's Ordinances) and that as soon as ever they seem to be brought in; and therefore experience of a blameless life is not always necessary for admission into the Church: some think indeed that the Apostles received in the first converts, ( Act. 2. 39.) so soon, because they had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, but if they had so: yet they did not receive them in here according to that, for they received divers hypocrites in, as Ananias and Sapphira, &c. and if all other of their acts in this chapter were exemplary, why should this only be thought to be otherwise and extraordinary?

3 When there is full and sufficient testimony from others of their faith and piety, although their humiliation, faith and conversation be not so well known, for we see the Church received Paul, when Barnabas had declared what God had done for him; and if it may be just to condemn another by the testimony of two faithful witnesses, it may not be unchristian to receive another into the fold of Christ (much more readily) upon the testimony of able and faithful Christians, especially then when they be not able openly, and publicly ro speak so fully for themselves, and thus much for answer to the first question

2 Question, Whether this profession is to be judged by the Church.

Answer, 1. The faithful as they did at first combine into a Church, so it is their duty to receive others to themselves, as the Church did, Acts 9. 26, 27. encouraged by Barnabas and the Apostles, and as the Apostle commands, Rom. 14. 1. which although it was of fellow-members into their affections, yet the proportion holds strong for receiving comers into the Church. Joh. Ep. 3. 8, 9, 10.

2 If they be to receive them, they must by some means know them, to be such as they may comfortably receive into their affections, a little leaven leavening the whole lump. 1 Cor. 5.

3 The Officers of the Church, (who are first privately to examine them) and prepare them for admission) are to show the Church the rule on which the Church is to receive them, and themselves are ready to admit them. Act. 10. 37. Can any forbid water, &c.

This rule was best seen by that public profession before the whole Church, and if no just exception be made (as one should be without conviction) they are to be admitted by the Officers with the consent of the members hereunto, for if public profession is needful at least before the Church, though not the world always (as Didoclavius observes) to the entrance into the Covenant and Church by baptism; we see no reason, but persons formerly baptized, and entering a new into the Church, but they should openly profess their faith again: the visible Church being built upon this rock, Matth. 16. 16, 18. viz. Profession of the faith of Christ; and lastly, if there should be no necessity for such a profession, yet if this be desired of the people of God, for the increase of their own joy to see God glorified, and Christ's name professed, and his virtues held forth, and for the increase of their love to those that join with them, why should it not be done before Saints, which should be done before persecutors? 1 Pet. 3. 15.

What is now said, we think sufficient to undermine what is opposed herein by others, and may easily give answer to the three arguments of the learned Author, from the example of the Church of Israel, John the Baptist and the Apostles, and so clear up our practice, and judgment to the world from the aspersion of our rigidum examen for which we are by some condemned, but for further clearing, we shall answer to the particulars.

Now to your Reasons more particularly against this from the Old Testament, and the manner of entering and renewing Covenant then.

Answ.

We answer, first, when as you say, they professing the Covenant promised to take God for their God, to keep the words of the Covenant and do them, to seek the Lord with all their hearts, to walk before him in truth and uprightness, this implieth a profession of a work of grace.

Secondly, They did not immediately enter into Covenant, but the Lord was long before preparing them for it, for they were humbled much in Egypt, in so much as their sighings came up to God, Exod. 2. 23, 24, 25. They had seen the glory of God for their good against Pharaoh, and all that Land, by many miracles, they had God's visible presence in the Cloud; were instructed by Moses concerning the Covenant of grace made with them in Abraham; they were mightily delivered at the Red Sea, so that they believed Moses and feared the Lord and sang his praise, Exod. 14. 31. Psalm 106. 12. They were also instructed again concerning the Covenant, and were to sanctify themselves three days legally, (which was for spiritual ends, and of spiritual use, Exod. 19. 10.) and thus being prepared as fit matter for Covenant, they then entered thereinto. And they were all of them (for ought we know) thus externally and ecclesiastically holy, though many were internally stiff-necked, blind and profane.

And for our parts we desire no more then such a preparation in some work of grace, if appearing (though not indeed) real as may make way for Church Covenant, among a people now as we see was then.

Reply.

When John the Baptist began to preach the Gospel, and gather a new people for Christ, he admitted none but upon confession of their sins, but we read of no question that he put forth to them to discover the work of grace in their souls, or repelled any upon that pretence that voluntarily submitted themselves.

Answ.

Though the Scripture record such things very briefly, (else the world would not have contained the Books that must have been written, as John speaketh,) yet he that advisedly considers the case, may see the profession of a work of grace in all that were received by John to his baptism.

First, John was sent with the Spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers, &c. to cast down every high hill, &c.

Secondly, His baptism is called the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins, Mark. 1. 4.

Thirdly, confession of sins is ever put for true repentance, when there is a promise of pardon made to it, Prov. 28. 13. 1 John 1. 9. and therefore when he requires confession of sins, was it without remorse or sorrow for it? was it not with profession of faith in the Messiah, which he pointed unto, Joh. 1. 29. and required with repentance, Act. 19. 4.

Fourthly, did not he fall upon the Pharisees with dreadful thundering of God's judgments, for coming to his baptism without conversion of heart, and fruits meet for repentance? Mat. 3. 7. and this Luke saith, he preached to the multitude, Luke 3. 7. and whether any were received that embraced not that Doctrine, and shown the same in their confession, viz. that their hearts were humbled, and that the renounced their high thoughts of their privileges of the Law, &c. and professed amendment & fruits meet for the same, it will be hard for any to prove: and thus much is evident: on the contrary that Pharesees & Lawyers distinguished from the People and Publicans rejected the counsel of God in not being baptized of him, and what counsel but that wholesome doctrine of John, Luke 7. 29, 30? Lay all these together, and let any whose thoughts are not prepossessed with prejudice, say, whether this confession was not such a profession of faith and repentance, which a discerning charity ought to take for a work of grace.

Repl • .

It appears many ways that when the Apostles planted Churches, they made a Covenant between God and the people whom they received. But they received men upon the profession of faith, and promise of • mendment of life, without strict inquiry what work of grace was wrought in the soul, so in after ages, &c. Now the profession at first required of all that were received to baptism, was that they believed in the Father, Son and holy Ghost. This was the confession of the Eunuch, when he was baptized: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Answ.

We cannot but observe how still the evidence of the truth of what we proved in the third and fourth positions, breaks out at every turn, when the heat of that disputation doth not hinder, for if the Apostles planted Churches and made a Covenant between God and the people when they baptized them, as the proofs for this Act. 2. 38. and 8. 37. and 19. 17, 18, 19. alleged in the margent show, then still it appears they admitted men into planted Churches when they baptized them, and the • efore the Apostles ordinary and first leading practice and examples are for those Position, not against them.

2 You grant here that Acts 2. and 8. and 19. there was a profession of faith and promise of amendment of life, and so we must suppose though not expressed, for how else could the Apostles distinguish such as gladly received the word, from the mockers and others?

Now let us consider what kind of profession this must be by the story it self. The Apostle Peter in his doctrine presseth three things. 1. Conversion or repentance for their sins: 2. Faith in Christ in those words, Be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Verse 38. 3. With many other words he exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation, that is, this was the scope of and substance of his exhortation, which includes a gathering themselves to the Church. Now the Text saith, in respect of the first, That they were pricked to the heart, and cried out Men, and Brethren what shall we do? 2. They gladly received the word, that is of faith in Christ, and the duty of obedience to the Gospel, and how did all this appear, but by their profession? and what kind of confession can any man think such souls would make, but a broken hearted gracious confession, which to any discerning charity must be taken to argue a work of grace? so that the very character given of them by the holy Ghost, in so brief an History, doth clearly evince what we contend for.

Consider also the story, Acts. 8. and first, not to pass over what is said of Simon Magus, of whom it is said, He believed, was baptized, continued with Philip, and wondered, so that no doubt they took him for a true believer, but when Peter discovered his falseness, see what he saith, Verse 21. Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter, and the reason is, For thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Let any here consider, that if he had no part nor lot in Christ and baptism, &c. because not right, whether the Apostle Peter or the Church would have received him, if such had been discovered before.

And for the Eunuch, Philip requiring his profession of faith▪ If thou believest with all thy heart, looked for a sound▪ work of grace, and though it was delivered in those words which are the Fundamental truth, That Jesus is the Son of God, yet it includes true faith in him for salvation: as we see our Savior Christ takes that confession of Peter for true faith, Flesh and • lood have not revealed this to thee, but my Father: and promised to build the Church on this rock, Matth. 16. Yea it includes subjection unto him as the Son of God, the Prophet and King of his Church, and this is no rare, but a common thing in the New Testament, by one fundamental truth, believed and confessed, to include true faith and profession of the whole truth that suites with that foundation, as Rom. 10. 9. so expounded, Verse 10, 11. as being more then historical faith, so 1 John 4. 1, 2. and 5. 1.

The like characters of a penitent and gracious carriage and confession may be observed, Act. 19. 17, 18, 19.

And seeing you have given us this occasion to lay down some grounds of our practice from the first patterns, we shall add a word or two to take away the conceit of novelty, which is imputed to us in this point as much as in anything else. Tertullian saith in his book of prescriptions, We admit no man to any disputation about divine things, unless he first have shown us of whom he received the faith and became a Christian; and secondly, whether he admit and hold the general principles, wherein all Christians do and ever did agree, otherwise proscribing against him as an alien from the Common-wealth of Israel. And if in those times they were so strict in admitting men to disputations, no doubt much more in receiving men to Church Communion. But if this seem not full enough, take another: in the Churches of old, there were Catechumen, instructed for entrance into the Church by baptism, with whom they took much pains in sanctifying them, before; by fasting and prayer, and often preaching to them. And for their admission, there were four things in use among them, 1. Nominis professio, 2. Scrutinium, 3. Abrenuntiatio, 4. Fidei professio. Their Scrutinium which they call Examen competentium, or the examination of such as were competent, or fitting for admission, This Examen was very strict as is observed out of Alcuinus, by learned * Chamier, Fiant scrutinia, ut explorentur saepius, an post renuntiationum Satanae, sacra verba datae fidei radicitus cord defixerint, i. e. Let examinations be made, that it oft may be tried, whether they have deeply fixed in the heart the sacred words of their professed faith. And what ever any may think of the strictness of that their discipline, in this point Chamier gives a large testimony, by way of approbation of the same, whose words upon it are these, Certe nemo improbare potest, seriam in tam sanctis rebus diligentiam, ne quantum fieri poterit lateant Simones, &c. i. Certainly no man can disallow such serious diligence, to prevent profanation of sacred things, lest (so far as it is possible) such as Simon Magus may lie hid: And saith he, the Apostles went before in their examples, for Philip, Acts 8. being demanded of the Eunuch, What hinders me that I may not be baptized? he answereth not simply thou mayst, but with this supposition added, if thou believest with thy whole heart. Now this profession of their faith was either by reciting the Creed in an eminent place before all the people, and that praeclarâ • iduciâ, with full affiance, as he observes out of Clement and Augustine, or else respondendo interroganti Sacerdoti per singula in subsidium forte pudoris aut memory, i. e. By answering to the Minister propounding questions, concerning their faith for help of their bashfulness, or want of memory.

Also Beza in his Epist. 14. Commending much the severity and zeal of former Pastors and Churches in this kind, and bemoaning the negligence of such as followed, from whence he saith it is, that the Church without a miracle could not rise out of its filth, he concludes thus, Itaque frustra disputabitur tum voice tum scriptis, nisi conversione cordium & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 initium instaurationis sumatur.

Reverend Mr. Hildersham in his treatise of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, to that question, whether the people that come to the Lord's Table, be bound to make known their knowledge and spiritual estate to their Pastor. Answers thus, yes verily, for seeing, Matth. 3. 6. Acts 8. 37. God required of them, that (being of years of discretion) were to be baptized, that they should make known to the Congregation or their Minister their, faith and repentance, he doth every whit as much require this of them that are to come to the Lord's Supper. Whereby we see, 1. that his judgment was that, Act. 8. and Mat. 3. the people did make known their spiritual estate to the congregation or Minister, when they professed faith and repentance: and secondly, that the same ought now so to be. Lastly, We may appeal herein to the consciences of very many godly Ministers, in our dear England, whether they groan not under the mixture of the precious with the vile, in the Ordinances of Christ, and would not gladly have it otherwise, which cannot be without such a way of admissions into the Church as we plead for, or else in constituted (but corrupted) Churches, by casting out such as after admonitions appear impenitent in sin, by the severity of discipline.

And this was evident by the qualifications of persons to be received to the Lord's Table, voted at first by the present Reverend Assembly, and presented in their Directory to the Parliament, if we be not mis-informed: whose words are these, None are to be admitted thereto (meaning the Lord Suppers) but such as being baptized are found upon careful examination by the Minister, before the other Church-Officers, to have a competent measure of knowledge and ability to examine themselves, and profess their willingness to submit thewselves to all the Ordinances of Christ, and are of approved conversation according to Christ: the ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted, nor those of another Congregation, unless they have sufficient testimony or be very well known.

If it be objected, that some of these instances concern unbaptized persons only, which is not our case; Answ. 1. Multitude of baptized persons in these days are as ignorant and profane as some unbaptized; and therefore as apt to pollute God's Ordinances: 2. Chamiers reason, why unbaptized persons were to go under such strict examination, holds good in our case. 3. Such profession of faith was required by John and the Apostles of those that were Church members before.

Reply.

The Creed is honored by the Ancients with glorious titles, as the rule of faith, &c. by which they understood that rule of faith given by Christ, when he was about to ascend, and commanded his Disciples, saying, Go teach all Nations. In after times some Articles were added for explanation, to meet with the heresies of those times, but for substance, the Church never required other acknowledgement, &c.

Answ.

If you mean that which is called the Apostles Creed, it is justly doubted whether it be so ancient, however, the times which followed the Scripture patterns, are both obscure to us, and no infallible pattern, yet many Churches used great strictness, as is shown, in receiving and restoring fallen members, and if afterward heresies gave just occasion to require further professions of the doctrine of faith, and to add more articles for explanation, why may not the Churches require a more explicate confession of the work of faith and repentance, the formality and mere outside profession of so many Civilists, Formalists, and Atheists requiring the same?

Reply▪

If you put men to declare that work of grace God hath wrought in this or that way, which perhaps is not determined by the word of grace, at least not agreed upon amongst yourselves, we beseech you to consider by what authority you do it, and upon what ground you stand.

Answ.

This is but upon a supposition, if so &c. which is contrary to our judgment, and professed practice to limit the spirit of grace in the workings of it. If any have so done, (as it may be in the times of opinions prevailing among us) we do not own it, but disapprove the same. It is enough for us to see any have some way, or by some means or other been humbled for sin, brought home to Christ by faith, or have any breathings of the Spirit of Christ, with a life answerable to the Faith of Christ.

CHAP. XVI.

Reply.

The question is of Ministers unjustly forsaken or driven from the Church, and your answer is for most part of Ministers, set aside or deprived by their own default: we never purposed to speak one word for an unworthy Minister, whom Christ hath put out of Office, and therefore your labor to prove that such justly rejected by the the Church, are no longer Ministers, might well have been saved.

Answ.

The ground of this Position being about the Nature of a Ministers Office; Whether it consist in his Office, relation to the flock of a particular Church: the former part of our answer was not in vain, nor the grounds impertinent, and we accept your grant of it, That a Minister justly rejected by his Church is no longer a Minister: then we infer that there is no indelible character in the Office, but that his Ministry stands in relation to a particular flock, not to the Catholic Church, for then a particular Church could not dissolve his Office, and therefore it will follow, that (if he be found worthy after) upon repentance to be called to another Church, he must be new elected and ordained to his Office, being no Minister upon his just deposing.

Reply.

But we will examine your conclusions upon which you build the sentence which you pass against them; first it is certain, &c.

Answ.

What is said to the first is spoken before, and we will not repeat things in vain.

Reply.

Secondly, The power of feeding, which the Minister hath, is neither confined to one society only, nor nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church. The Office and authority of a Pastor is immediately from Christ, the deputation of the person which Christ hath designed is from the Church ministerially, but neither virtually nor formally.

Answ.

These things about the call of a Minister by the Church were also spoken to before, when we spake of the power of the Keys, and the first subject thereof, and therefore the assertion being granted, these things might well be spared, but what we find here more then in the other place, we shall consider.

The power of the Church in electing her Officers is so clear in the Scripture, and so confessed a truth by the godly learned, that it cannot be denied, yet here seem to be given so many restrictions in the case, that they much abate and weaken this great and precious liberty and power given by the Lord. 1. That the power and Office of a Pastor is immediately from Christ by his institution is granted, but the question is, how this man comes to have this Office applied to him; if immediately, then he is in this an Apostle, if mediately, it is by the Church, or else show by whom 2. That the Church choose Ministerially, and ought to choose whom Christ hath described in his word, and fitted with gifts, and so far designed by Christ we grant, but what if there be twenty such? Which of them doth Christ design, but whom the Church freely choose? and therefore that is no diminution of their power, that they must choose ministerially, and whom Christ so designs. The case is alike in all other Ordinances dispensed, Examination is immediately from Christ, by his institution, the person to be censured is designed or described by▪ Christ, a notorious or obstinate sinner: the Church pass this sentence only Ministerially, and yet puts forth a great power of the Lord Jesus Christ, in applying the sentence to this or that person: and so here▪ and therefore it is strange to us, that any should say they depute this Officer neither virtually nor formally, when as the act which they put forth, (which is the outward call of the Officer) must needs come from a power formally in the Church to do the same, as well as when the Church or Officers censure an offender, &c.

Reply.

The consent of the people is requisite in the election of Pastors and Teachers, we grant, the direction of the Elders going before, or along with them, Acts 1. Peter declared what an one should be taken, &c. Acts 6. Deacons were chosen by the consent of the Church, &c. but in this election the people did first choose, when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people, and went before them in the electon, and they consented. Act. 14. 23. The Apostles by consent choose, &c.

Answ.

This restriction of the people's power to an after consent, at least ordinarily, will not hold: if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denied, and the other places were more obscure, why should not that place with its light clear the rest? but that in Act. 1. is as evident, Peter proves the need of such a choice to be made, shows it must be one that had so long conversed with Christ, to witness such things, and further he doth not lead them, there might be twenty such, but they choose two, as a preparative act to Apostleship, Vers. 23. and who were they, but such as they speak unto, viz. the Disciples, Vers. 15. whom he calls Men and Brethren, Vers. 16. so Act. 14. 23. lifting up of hands is the sign of election, not of an after consent.

Lastly, by this Doctrine how shall the Church come by Officers, when she hath none to go before her in choosing for her? must she loose her right, or take whom others will choose for her, and impose upon her?

Reply.

In the primitive times, after the Apostles, one Church might elect a Pastor for another, &c.

Answ.

1 If by way of counsel one Church shall propound and advise another to choose such, (leaving them free to take or refuse) this is lawful in case, but otherwise it is a plain usurpation and we must leave Scripture rules and patterns to justify it.

2 We grant in a safe sense there may be Communis electio, whereby a fit man is propounded by Churches or Ministers to be chosen by another people, and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Pastor for the Church at Antioch, (as Ignatius exhots) with sundry like instances in the first times after the Apostles, and this we deny not may lawfully be now. But this is nothing to that electio singularis, whereby a people choose one to be their Minister, of which we speak, for it is evident from the Testimony of Cyprian oft alleged, that it is in the power of the people to choose worthy Ministers, and reject the unworthy; and Ambrose thinks that he is worthily thought to be elected divino judicio, whom all the people desire▪ Ambrose. lib. 10. Ep. 82.

It is very true, that as the times grew worse, the elections were oft disturbed, sometimes by the Clergy choosing without the people, (of which Athanasius complains) sometimes by the people's carrying it tumultuously: sometime the Emperors interposing.

But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Christ hath given it, and therefore he that was no great friend to the people's liberties, yet ingenuously saith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum, and most apt to be tumultuous, yet this is not innated to a believing people, qui non minus nunc quam olim gravis esset in electionibus, ac publicae utilitatis studiosissima, Spalta▪ de Rep. Eccles. Lib. 3. Cap. 3.

Reply.

If here it be questioned, whether your election of the people be essential to the calling of a Minister, we answer, First, A thing is essential two ways, either as absolutely necessary, so as the thing can have no existence without it; or necessary to the integrity of a thing, so that it is maimed without it. Again the people be either few in number, and simple, unable to judge of the sufficiency of a Minister, or they be more in number, increased in wisdom, sound in faith, and able to discern of things that differ. In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essential, in the second, his calling in that respect is maimed.

Answ.

It is to be noted, that here we dispute of the outward calling of Church-Officers; now the very essence of any outward calling, doth lie in the right and power of them that elect. If all the Countries of England should elect or call a Lord Major for London, be they never so many and wise, it is a mere nullity, and why? Because the right of election is not in them, but if the Citizens in whom the right lies, do elect (though weakly) he hath the true essence of the call: if others electing a Major the City will receive him, submit to him, and so give their consent, he may be said to have the substance of that call, though not an orderly and lawful election, and so maimed: so it is here.

Secondly, if in our election of the people (being the Scripture way of election,) the proper right and power be seated by Christ in the Church, unto whom they are to minister, then it must needs follow, that the very essence of a Ministers call stands in their election, or at least in their after consent and subjection to his Ministry, in which case we grant though the calling be maimed, yet it hath the substance of a true calling. But if the people will not receive such as are imposed upon them, he hath no call at all, but usurps the same, and it is a mere nullity. And therefore it concerns Churches the more to consider, what they do in receiving and submitting to such unworthy Ministers, as are oft imposed upon them; but if the right and power of electing Ministers be in any other Persons, let it be shown from the Scriptures, for we are not much moved in such cases with the corrupt customs of after-times.

And this also shows what kind of call such men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all, if they be Ministers to the Catholic Church, then the Catholic Church is bound to receive them, and submit to their Office, but no part of the Catholic Church, and therefore not the whole is bound to submit to them, and therefore indeed they have no office nor calling as Pastors or Teachers, except it can be proved they be Evangelists, Apostles or Prophets.

Reply.

If the people be few and simple, they stand in more need of guidance from their own Elders and other Churches; If many and full of wisdom, their liberty to choose is the greater, and the greater wrong to be deprived of it. The practice of the Apostles and Primitive Churches show this for many ages, sometime men were propounded to the Church to be chosen, sometimes the chief left wholly to them.

Answ.

1 What is all this to the purpose, what light or derection a Church need to receive? the essence of a Ministers call lies not in the propounding or advising of any to elect him, but in the Election of such as have the true right so to do, which is still in the Church, though few and weak, if a true Church, and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded by the Apostles, or Elders to the Church to be chosen by them, much less limiting the Church to consent thereto, if they had nothing against him.

Reply.

In reason this is evident, for the Childs consent is required in marriage, but the more able he is to choose for himself, the more liberty may Parents grant, the less able the more watchful must they be.

This similitude utterly faileth in two essential things, that concern the case for which it is applied. 1. Because a child is under the authority of the parents, whose right is such that a Child cannot lawfully choose without them. But there is no Church or others have such a right and authority over any Church in their choice of Officers. 2. Whatsoever the power of parents be, yet the essence of the marriage consists in the mutual consent and promise of the children that marry, and so here the essence of a Ministers call must lie in the election of the Church and acceptance of the Minister which is not avoided but by the similitude confirmed.

Reply.

It is a duty of neighbor Churches to lend their help to their brethren in election of their Ministers, when the Scripture willeth us to exhort one another or admon • sh one another, it is not only a command to every singular person towards his fellow, but also to any whole company.

Answ.

We grant all this, and that it is the duty of a Church, be it weak or strong, to take all needful counsel, advise or exhortations and admonitions in so weighty a work. But if Churches or others shall impose upon any Church any Officer without their choice, this is no brotherly help, but unjust usurpation. And if you understand Junius so, as that Charitatis jure & Communione sanctorum, one Church have power to choose for another, other ways, then by advising them to elect such an one for themselves, we see no reason for that, nor do we think it is his meaning: neither doth Paul, Rom. 12. 12. lay any foundation of such usurpations, but only of mutual brotherly helpfulness by counsel, &c. and the contrary is not Policy, but some degree of tyranny.

Reply.

It is a blemish in the call of a Minister, if either the people be not fit to choose, or being fit they he shut out from the choice, but this maim doth not make a nullity in his calling.

Answ.

If a people or Church be never so weak, which is here called unfitness, yet Christ being amongst them, and they making an orderly and good choice, there can be no blemish in the call seeing the right is them, and such a free choice will better stablish the conscience of any godly Minister in his call, then if a Synod of the ablest Ministers should impose him without their free choice, except it can be proved that the right of election is in the Synod, which we think will not be done. But be they able or weak, if the people be shut out, it must needs make a great maim in his call, and if they do not consent nor submit to such a one called by others, it will make it a nullity, as was shown before. What authority hath he to Minister to any Church, if they will refuse him? or who shall censure them for refusing, by any rule of Christ?

Reply.

The saving truth of God and a lawful Ministry are both essential to a true Church.

Answ.

Answ. What then becomes of the Church when the Minister is dead?

Reply.

The true Church hath continued by the blessing of God where the election of Ministers hath been given away by the people or taken from them.

Answ.

True; but it hath been continued by the after consent, and subjection of the people to their Ministers chosen by others, else they must needs have broken a pieces and dissolved the Church, or taken upon them to choose others to themselves, which still shows that the essence of the call is in the people. What is said of the disorders of Ancient Churches in elections, we pass over as nothing to this purpose. That the Ministry might be lawful for substance, where there were many defects in the manner of the call we grant, the Church at length consenting to submit thereto, in whom the true right is placed by Christ: and therefore we pass over what follows to that purpose, though we might object against some passages in the discourse.

Reply.

As for the second branch of your answer we know not well your meaning; if this be your mind, that a Minister lawfully called and set over the Congregation, is to be esteemed a Minister in the usual Church, as the particular Church hath unity with, and is part of the universal or Catholic, and as a party baptized is not baptized into that Congregation only, but into all Churches, and that the Ministry is one, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur, as Cyprian speaketh, and therefore though the Minister be unjustly cast eff by one Congregation, yet he is not to be esteemed as no Minister, we freely consent▪ But if your meaning be, that he is only by right a Minister of that particular Congregation, because unjustly deposed, as formerly in the execution of his Office, • ee was a Minister to them only, and to no other society whatsoever, or in what respect soever▪ your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the universal, and tends to destroy the unity of the Church, and that Communion which the Churches of God ought to have one with another.

Answ.

First, If our meaning be doubtful, seeing these expressions do not well suite our notion, nor fully enter into our understanding, we shall give the meaning of our answer distinctly, and then consider what is here said.

First, there is a difference between the unjust leaving or casting off a Minister, without all orderly proceedings against him, and the unjust deposing him in an orderly way of Church censure: if the question be taken in the first sense, he remains every way and in every respect by right a Minister as he was before, except he reject them, and so dissolve the relation that was between them. But if the question speak of an orderly censure of deposition unjustly, then we judge of that case as we would do in any other, censure of a member by excommunication, & therefore we say, he is still a Minister, in foro interno before Christ, for clavis errans non ligat. Secondly, in respect of that Church he hath still right truly to minister to them, and is their Minister though unjustly hindered in the execution of his Ministry, as a member unjustly censured hath a true right to the Ordinances, and membership, though unjustly hindered from the same, though in foro externo, we grant to them or in their account he is no Minister, as a person excommunicated is to them no member.

Thirdly, in respect of other Churches, if it doth appear unto them that he is unjustly deposed, they may and ought to esteem him still, and receive him and have communion with him, as a true Minister of Jesus Christ, in the Church he doth belong to, as they may do with a member unjustly cast out, but til that appear unto them, they cannot so esteem and honor him, (being orderly deposed but must at least suspend their judgment til the case be cleared.

Fourthly we answer clearly and plainly to the chief scope of the question, If a Minister be unjustly deposed or forsaken by his particular Church, and he also withal renounce and forsake them, so far as all Office and relation between them cease, then is he no longer an Officer or Pastor in any Church of God, whatsoever you will call it. And the Reason is, because a Ministers office in the Church i • no indelible Character, but consists in his relation to the flock: and if a Minister once ordained, his relation ceasing, his Office of a Minister, Steward of the mysteries of God shall still remain; why should not a ruling Elder or Deacon remain an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well? all are Officers Ordained of Christ alike given to his Church, Officers chosen and Ordained by laying on of hands alike, but we suppose you will not say a Deacon in such a case should remain a Deacon in the Catholic Church, therefore not a Minister.

Secondly, we shall now consider what is here said, and first this language of a Minister in the usual Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the universal, it is an unusual expression to us, and to the Scripture phrase, and therefore bear with us if we fall short of your meaning; the usual Church in England hath been either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaries, or Diocesan in the Bishopric, or Provincial or National, but we hope that there is no such intended here, yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been subject as parts there.

But if by usual Church you mean a Classical, Provincial or National Church, we must entreat better grounds for any of these, and therefore we must confess our mind and meaning is not so, that we look at a Minister of a particular Church in any such relation to the usual and intermediate Church between it and the Catholic. The second sense therefore we own and acknowledge as before. But whether this be contrary to the judgment and practice of the universal Church, we know not; because it is hard for us know what the universal Church judgeth, except we could hear it speak or see its practice; if the only head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jesus Christ be fit to declare her judgment, we will be tried thereby, who we know hath s • t Elders in every particular Church, Act. 14. 23. to watch over their particular flock, Act. 20. 28. but not over any other Church that we can find. Neither doth this destroy the unity or Communion of the Catholic Church, nor of particular Churches one with another as is said, for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another, without such stated forms, under the power and authority of one another, as hath been shown before.

Reply.

For if he be not a Minister to other Churches, then are not the Churches of God one, nor the Communion which they have together on▪ n • r the Ministers one, nor the ••• cke which they feed one.

Answ.

In what sense is intended to have the Ministers one, and flock one, we do not see. If you mean one by one visible Government over the Catholic Church, wherein there is a subordination of Churches and Ministers, you must at last rise to Oecomenicall Pastor, or Council, that must be the supreme, which can scarce ever be had. If you mean an unity by brotherly Communion in offices of love and mutual helpefulnesse of Churches and Ministers, without usurpation, such an unity and Community is not destroyed, and the argument doth not follow▪ Cannot many distinct societies ot Towns or Corporations make up one County, except the Major or Constable in one Town be a Major or Constable in others also? By this Reason the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all, or else the unity is destroyed.

Reply.

If the Pastor derive all his authority from the Church, when the Church hath set him aside, what right hath he to administer among that people?

Answ.

True, but we say he derives all his authority from Christ, by the Church indeed, applying that office to him, to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ, hence being the Minister of Christ unto them, if they without Christ depose him, they hinder the exercise of his Office, but his right remains.

Reply.

As they give right to an unworthy man to minister amongst them, if they cal him unjustly, so they take right from the worthy, if they unjustly depose him.

Answ.

We grant there is a parity in foro externo, but as in the call, his outward cal consists in the election of the calling, and the acceptation of the called, to complete his power of administration. Now this by Christ in his Church may be destroyed in a just censure without his consent, but cannot unjustly be wrung from him without his consent, & therefore he may hold his right, till either he be justly deposed or willingly relinquish the same upon their injurious interruption of the use of his right.

Reply.

And whereas you say the Minister is for the Ministry, and the Office for the execution, and so the Pastor and the flock are relatives, and therefore, if their election gave him authority among them to feed, their casting him off hath stripped him of the same power they gave him.

A • su.

We grant it is so, yet the execution may be unjustly hindered, though the right and Office remain: But we may well retort this argument upon the Minister of the usual or Catholic Church. Thus if the Minister be for the Ministry, and the Office for the execution, and so the Pastor and flock be relatives, then he that may justly forever be hindered of all execution of the Ministry and hath no power to censure his flock, or cannot so much as justly approve and admonish them for the same, surely he hath a poor Office and Ministry, but such a Minister that hath no particular Congregation, that is his flock under his charge, may justly be excluded out of all Churches, and cannot censure or reprove his Catholic or usual Church for the same, therefore he is indeed no Minister, and and hath no Office in the Church of God.

CHAP. XVII.

Reply.

The Preaching of the Word and public Prayer in the Congregation, meet together solemnly to worship God, &c. are properly Ministerial, &c.

Answ.

Concerning our true sense and meaning in our answer to this Position we have spoken in the second consideration of the second and third Positions, to which we refer the Reader, only here we must ingenuously confess that our expression, That a Minister exercising in another Church, doth it not by virtue of any calling, but only by his gifts, is not so clear, but may occasion stumbling, yet the the next words following do fully express our minds, viz. that he doth not put forth such a Ministerial act of authority and power in dispensing of God's Ordinances, as a Minister doth perform to that Church, whereunto he is called to be a Minister, for so he doth not perform any Ministerial act with that authority: he doth to his own which further clears up our expression in the second consideration, viz. that he is a Pastor of none but his proper flock, although some acts of his Office may extend beyond his own flock, as we have shown before; and therefore in this sense we may still conclude, that if the question be put to any Minister (so exercising in another church) which was once put to our Savior, By what authority dost thou these things? let him study how to give an answer, for we have not yet learned it from this Reply. We confess there are some godly learned servants of Christ, who possibly may be otherwise minded, and think that a Minister preaching in another Congregation, doth it only as a gifted man; as the Refuter of Doctor Downam (with others in former times of Reformation) believed also. But we desire that if any difference appear herein, it may be no prejudice to the same cause for substance we maintain, if by sundry lines we all meet at last in the same point.