A DEFENCE Of Mr. JOHN COTTON From the imputation of self CONTRADICTION, charged on him by Mr. DAN: Cawdrey Written by himself not long before his death. Whereunto is prefixed, an Answer to a late Treatise of the said Mr. Cawdrey about the nature of schism. BY JOHN OWEN: D: D:  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Tit. 1. 7. 
OXFORD, Printed by H: HALL; for T. ROBINSON. 1658.   

CHRISTIAN READER,  
I have not much to say unto thee, concerning the ensuing Treatise; it will speak for itself with all impartial men; much less shall I insist on the commendation of its author, who also being dead {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; and will be so I am persuaded, whilst Christ hath a Church upon the Earth; The Treatise itself was written sundry years ago, immediately upon the publishing of Mr Cawdryes' Accusation against him; I shall not need to give an account whence it hath been, that it saw the light no sooner; it may suffice, that in mine own behalf and of others, I do acknowledge that in the doing of sundry things seeming of more importance, this ought not to have been omitted; The judgement of the author approving of this vindication of himself as necessary, considering the place he held in the Church of God, should have been a rule unto us, for the performance of that duty, which is owing to his worth and piety, in doing and suffering for the Truth of God. It is now about 7 months ago, since it came into my hands; and since I engaged myself into the publication of it, my not immediate proceeding therein, being sharply rebuked by a fresh charge upon myself from that hand, under which this worthy Person so far suffered, as to be necessitated to the ensuing defensative, I have here discharged that engagement. The Author of the charge against him, in his Epistle to that against me, tells his Reader, that it is thought that it was intended by another (and now promised by myself) to be published to cast a slur upon him; so are our intentions judged, so our ways, by thoughts and reports; Why a Vindication of Mr Cotton should cast a slur upon Mr Cawdry I know not; Is he concerned in Spirit or Reputation in the Acquitment of an holy, reverend Person now at rest with Christ, from imputations of inconstancy and self contradiction? Is there not room enough in the world, to bear the good names of Mr Cotton and Mr Cawdry? but that if one be vindicated the other must be slurred? He shall find now by experience, what assistance he found from him who loved him, to bear his charge, and to repel it, without any such reflection on his Accuser, as might savour of an intention to slur him; mala mens, malus animus; the measure that men fear from others, they have commonly meted out unto them before hand; He wishes those that intend to rake in the ashes of the dead, to consider whether they shall deserve any thanks for their labour. How the covering of the dead with their own comely garments, comes to be a raking into their ashes, I know not; His name is alive, though he be dead; It was that, not his person, that was attempted to be wounded, by the charge against him; to pour forth that balm for it's healing, now he is dead, which himself provided whilst he was alive, without adding or diminishing one syllable, is no raking into his ashes; and I hope the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of the Reverend author, will not allow him to be offended, that this friendly office is performed to a dead Brother; to publish this his defence of his own innocency, written in obedience to a prime dictate of the law of Nature, against the wrong which was not done him in secret.  
But the intendment of this prefatory discourse, being my own concernment, in reference to a late tract of Mr Cawdry's, bearing in its Title and Superscription, a vindication from my unjust clamours and false aspersions; I shall not detain the Reader with any farther discourse of that, which he will find fully debated in the ensuing Treatise itself; but immediately address myself to that, which is my present peculiar design; By what ways and means the difference betwixt us is come to that issue wherein now it stands stated, in the expressions before mentioned, I shall not need to repeat. Who first let out those waters of strife, who hath filled their streams with bitterness, clamour & false aspersions, is left to the judgement of all, that fear the Lord, who shall have occasion at any time to reflect upon those discourses; How ever it is come to pass, I must acknowledge that the state of the Controversy between us is now degenerated into such an useless strife of words, as that I dare publicly own engagements into studies of so much more importance unto the interest of truth, Piety, and literature, as that I cannot with peace in my own retirements, be much farther conversant therein. Only whereas I am not in the least convinced, that Mr Cawdry hath given satisfaction to my former Expostulations, about the injuries done me in his other Treatise, and hath evidently added to the number and weight of them in this, I could not but lay hold of this opportunity given, by my discharging a former promise, once more to remind him of some miscarriages, exceedingly unbecoming his profession and calling; which I shall do in a brief review of his Epistle and Treatise. Upon the consideration whereof, without charging him or his way with schism, in great letters on the Title-page of this book, I doubt not but it will appear, that the guilt of the crime he falsely, unjustly, & uncharitably chargeth upon others, may be laid more equitably at his own door; and that the shortness of the covering to hide themselves, used by him and others from the inquisition made after them for schism, upon their own principles, will not be supplied by such outcries as those he is pleased to use after them, who are least of all men concerned in the matter under contest, there being no solid medium, whereby they may be impleaded. And in this discourse, I shall, as I suppose, put an end to my engagement in this controversy; I know no man whose patience will enable him to abide always in the consideration of things to so little purpose; were it not that men bear themselves on high by resting on the partial adherence of many to their dictates, it were impossible they should reap any contentment in their retirements from such a management of Controversies as this; Independency is a great schism, it hath made all the divisions amongst us, Brownists, Anabaptists, and all sectaries are Independents; they deny our Ministers and Churches, they separate from us, all errors come from among them, this I have been told, and that I have heard, is the sum of this Treatise; who they are of whom he speaks, how they came into such a possession of all Church state in England, that all that are not with them are Schismatickes; how de jure, or de facto, they came to be so instated; what claim they can make to their present stations, without schism, on their own principles; whether granting the Church of England as constituted when they and we begun that, which we call Reformation, to have been a True instituted Church they have any Power of rule in it, but what hath been got by violence; what, that is purely theirs, hath any pretence of establishment, from the scripture, antiquity, and the laws of this land? I say with these and the like things, which are incumbent on him to clear up, before his Charges with us will be of any value, our author troubleth not himself. But to proceed to the particulars by him insisted on.  
1. He tells the Reader in his Epistle, that his unwillingness to this rejoinder was heightened by the Necessity he found, of discovering some personal weaknesses and forgetfulnesses in me, upon my deny all of some things which were known to be true, if he should proceed therein; for what he intimates of the unpleasantness that it is to him, to discover things of that importance in me, when he professeth his design to be to impair my Authority, so far that the cause I own may receive no countenance thereby; I leave it to him, who will one day reveal the secrets of all hearts, which at present are open and naked unto him; but how I pray are the things by me denied known to be true? seeing it was unpleasant and distasteful to him to insist upon them, men might expect that his Evidence of them, was not only open, clear, undeniable, and manifest as to its truth, but cogent as to their publication; The whole insisted on is, if there be any truth in reports; hic nigrae succus loliginis, haec est aerugo mera; Is this a bottom for a Minister of the Gospel to proceed upon, to such charges as those insinuated; is not the course of Nature set on fire at this day, by reports? is any thing more contrary to the royal law of charity, than to take up reports as the ground of charges and accusations? Is there any thing more unbecoming a man, laying aside all considerations of christianity, than to suffer his judgement to be tainted, much more his words, and public expressions in charging, & accusing others to be regulated by reports? and whereas we are commanded to speak evil of no man, may we not on this ground, speak evil of all men, and justify ourselves by saying it is so, if reports be true? the Prophet tells us, that a combination for his defaming and reproach was managed among his Adversaries, Jer. 20. 10. I have heard the defaming of many, fear on every side, report say they, and we will report it; if they can have any to go before them in the Transgression of that Law, which he who knows how the tongues of men are set on fire of Hell, gave out to lay a restraint upon them, thou shalt not raise a false report, Exod. 23. 1. They will second it, and spread it abroad to the utmost, for his disadvantage and trouble; Whether this procedure of our Reverend author, come not up to the practice of their design, I leave to his own conscience to judge. Should men suffer their Spirits to be heightened by provocations of this nature, unto a recharge from the same offensive dunghill of reports, what monsters should we speedily be transformed unto? but this being far from being the only place wherein appeal is made to reports and hearesays by our author, I shall have occasion in the consideration of the severals of them, to reassume this discourse. For what he adds about the space of time wherein my former reply was drawn up, because I know not whether he had heard any report insinuated to the contrary to what I affirmed, I shall not trouble him with giving evidence thereunto: but only add that here he hath the product of half that time, which I now interpose upon the review of my transcribed papers: Only whereas it is said that Mc Cawdry is an ancient man; I cannot but wonder he should be so easy of belief; Arist. Rhetor. lib. 2. c. 18. tells us, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and not apt to believe; whence on all occasions of discourse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; but he believes all that comes to hand with an easy Faith, which he hath totally in his own power, to dispose of at pleasure. That I was in passion when I wrote my review is his judgement; but this is but man's day; we are in expectation of that, wherein the world shall be judged in righteousness; it is to possible that my spirit was not in that frame in all things, wherein it ought to have been; but that the Reverend author knows not; I have nothing to say to this, but that of the Philosopher— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Epic. Cap. 48. Much I confess, was not spoken by me (which he afterwards insisteth on) to the Argumentative part of his book, which as in an answer I was not to look for, so to find, had been a difficult task. As he hath nothing to say, unto the differences among themselves both in judgement and practice, so how little there is, in his recrimination of the differences among us, as that one and the same man differeth from himself, which charge he casts upon Mr Cotton and myself, will speedily be manifested to all impartial men. For the Treatise itself whose consideration I now proceed unto, that I may reduce what I have to say unto it, unto the bounds intended in confining my defensative unto this Preface to the treatise of another, I shall refer it unto certain Heads, that will be comprehensive of the whole, and give the Reader a clear and distinct view thereof.  
I shall begin with that which is least handled in the two books of this Reverend Author, though the sum of what was pleaded by me in my Treatise of schism. For the discovery of the true nature of schism, and the vindication of them who were falsely charged with the crime thereof, I laid down two Principles as the foundation of all that I Asserted in the whole cause insisted on; which may briefly be reduced to these two syllogisms.  
1. If in all and every place of the new Testament where there is mention made of schism, name, or thing, in an ecclesiastical sense; there is nothing intended by it, but a division in a particular Church; then that is the proper Scripture notion of schism in the ecclesiastical sense; but in all and every place etc: ergo, The Proposition being clear and evident in its own light, the Assumption was confirmed in my Treatise, by an induction of the several instances that might any way seem to belong unto it.  
My second principle was raised upon a concession of the general nature of schism restrained with one necessary limitation and amounts unto this Argument.  
If schism in an ecclesiastical sense, be the breach of an Union of Christ's institution, than they who are not guilty of the breach of any union of Christ's Institution, are not guilty of schism; but so is schism, Ergò,  
The Proposition also of this syllogism with its inference being unquestionable, for the confirmation of the Assumption I considered the nature of all Church Union as instituted by Christ, and pleaded the innocency of those whose defence in several degrees I had undertaken, by their freedom from the breach of any Church Union. Not finding the Reverend author in his first answer to speak clearly and distinctly to either of those principles, but to proceed in a course of perpetual diversion, from the thing in question, with reflections, charges etc: All rather I hope out of an unacquaintedness with the true nature of argumentation, than any perverseness of spirit, in cavilling at what he found he could not answer; I earnestly desired him in my review that we might have a fair and friendly meeting, personally to debate these principles which he had undertaken to oppose, and so to prevent trouble to ourselves and others, in writing and reading things remote from the merit of the cause under agitation; what returns I have had hereto, the Reader is now acquainted withal, from his rejoinder, the particulars where of shall be farther inquired into afterward.  
The other parts of his two books consist in his charges upon me, about my judgement in sundry particulars, not relating, in the least that I can as yet understand, unto the Controversy in hand; As to his excursions, about Brownists, Anabaptists Seekers; rending the peace of their Churches, separating from them, the errors of the separatists, and the like, I cannot apprehend myself concerned to take notice of them; to the other things an Answer shall be returned, and a defence made, so far as I can judge it necessary. It may be our Author seeks a relief from the Charge of schism that lies upon him and his party (as they are called) from others, by managing the same charge against them, who he thinks will not return it upon them: but for my part, I shall assure him that were he not in my judgement more acacquitted upon my principles than upon his own, I should be necessitated to stand upon even terms with him herein; but to have advantages from want of charity, as the Donatists had against the Catholics, is no Argument of a Good cause.  
In the first Chapter there occurs not any thing of real difference as to the cause under agitation, that should require a review, being spent wholly in things {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And therefore I shall briefly animadvert on what seems of most concernment therein, in the manner of his procedure. His former discourse, and this also consisting much of my words perverted by adding in the close something that might wrest them to his own purpose, he tells me in the beginning of his third Chapter, that this is to turn my testimony against myself, which is, as he saith, and allowed way of the clearest victory, which it seems he aimeth at; but nothing can be more remote from being defended with that pretence than this his way of proceeding. 'Tis not of urging a Testimony from me, against me, that I complained, but the perverting of my words, by either heading, or closeing of them with his own, quite to other purposes than those of their own intendment: a way whereby any man may make other men's words to speak what he pleaseth; as Mr Biddle high his leading questions, and knitting of Scriptures to his expressions in them, makes an appearance of constraining the word of God to speak out all his Socinian blasphemies.  
In this course he still continues; and his very entrance gives us a pledge of what we are to expect in the process of his management of the present business; whereas I had said, that considering the various interests of parties at difference, there is no great success to be promised by the management of Controversies, though with never so much evidence and conviction of truth; to the repetition of my words he subjoins the instance of Sectaries, not restrained by the clearest demonstration of truth; not weighing how facile a task it is, to supply Presbyterians in their room; which in his account is, it seems, to turn his testimony against himself, & as he somewhere phraseth it, to turn the point of his sword into his own bowels; but, nobis non licet esse tam disertis; neither do we here, either learn or teach any such way of disputation.  
His following leaves are spent for the most part in slighting the Notion of schism by me insisted on, and in reporting my arguments for it (p. 8, 9, 12.) in such a way and manner, as argues that he either never understood them, or is willing to pervert them. The true nature and importance of them I have before laid down, and shall not now again repeat: Though I shall add that his frequent repetition of his disproving that principle, which it appears, that he never yet contended with all, in its Full strength, brings but little advantage to his cause, with persons whose interest doth not compel them to take up things on trust. How well he clears himself from the charge of reviling and useing opprobrious reproachful terms, although he profess himself to have been astonished at the charge, may be seen in his justification of himself therein. pag. 16, 17, 18, 19 with his reinforcing every particular expression instanced in; and yet he tells me, for inferring that he discovered sanguinary thoughts in reference unto them whose removal from their native soil into the wilderness, he affirms, England's happiness would have consisted in, that he hath much ado to forbear once more to say the Lord rebuke thee: for my part, I have received such a satisfactory taste of his spirit and way, that as I shall not from henceforth desire him to keep in any thing, that he can hardly forbear to let out, but rather to use his utmost liberty; so I must assure him that I am very little concerned, or not at all, in what he shall be pleased to say, or to forbear for the time to come; himself hath freed me of that concernment.  
The first particular of value insisted on, is his charge upon me for the denial of all the Churches of England to be true Churches of Christ, except the Churches gathered, in a congregational way: Having frequently and without hesitation charged this opinion upon me in his first answer, knowing it to be very false, I expostulated with him about it in my review. instead of accepting the satisfaction tendered in my express denial of any such thought or persuasion, or tendering any satisfaction as to the wrong done me, he seeks to justify himself in his charge, and so persisteth therein. The Reasons he gives of his so doing are not unworthy a little to be remarked.  
The first is this; He supposed me to be an Independent, and therefore made that charge; the consequent of which supposition is much to weak, to justify this Reverend author in his Accusation; doth he suppose that he may without offence, lay what he please to the charge of an Independent? but he saith secondly, that he took the word Independent, generally, as comprehending Brownists, & Anabaptists, and other Sectaries: But herein also he doth but delude his own conscience, seeing he personally speaks to me and to my design in that book of schism, which he undertook to confute; which also removes his third intimation, that he formerly intended any kind of Independency, etc: the rest that follow are of the same nature, and however compounded will not make a salve to heal the wound made in his reputation by his own weapon; for the learned Author, called vox populi, which he is pleased here to urge? I first question whither he be willing to be produced to maintain this Charge; and if he shall appear; I must needs tell him, (what he here questions whether it be so, or no) that he is a very liar. For any principles in my Treatise, whence a denial of their Ministers and Churches may be regularly deduced, let him produce them if he can; and if not, acknowledge that there had been a more Christian and ingenious way of coming off an engagement into that charge, then that by him chosen to be insisted on; animos & iram ex crimine sumunt. And again we have vox populi cited on the like occasion, pag. 34; about my refusal to answer whither I were a Minister or not; which as the thing itself of such a refusal of mine on any occasion in the world, (because it must be spoken) is purum putum mendacium, so it is no truer, that, that was vox populi at Oxford which is pretended; that which is vox populi, must be public: publicum was once populicum; now setting aside the whispers, of it may be two or three Ardelio's, notorious triflers, whose lavish impertinency, will deliver any man from the danger of being slandered by their tongues, and there will be little ground left for the report, that is fathered on vox populi: And I tell him here once again (which is a sufficient answer indeed to his whole first Chapter) that I do not deny Presbyterian Churches to be true Churches of Jesus Christ, nor the ministers of them to be true ministers, nor do maintain a nullity in their Ordination as to what is the proper use and end of Ordination, (taking it in the sense, wherein by 
Vid. Gerard. loc. Com. de Minist. Ecclesiast. Sect. 11. 12.  them it is taken,) though I think it neither administered by them in due order, nor to have in itself that force and efficacy, singly considered, which by many of them is ascribed unto it. Thus much of my judgement I have publicly declared long ago, and I thought I might have expected from persons Professing Christianity, that they would not voluntarily engage themselves into an opposition against me, and waving my judgement which I had constantly published and preached, have gathered up reports from private and table discourses, most of them false and untrue, all of them uncertain, the occasions and coherences of those discourses from whence they have been raised and taken, being utterly lost, or at present by him wholly omitted. His following excursions about a successive ordination from Rome, wherein he runs cross to the most eminent lights of all the Reformed Churches, and their declared judgements, with practice in reordaining those who come unto them with that Roman stamp upon them, I shall not further interest myself in, nor think myself concerned so to do, until I see a satisfactory answer given unto Beza and others in this very point; and yet I must here again profess, that I cannot understand that distinction of deriving ordination from the Church of Rome, but not from the Roman Church. Let him but seriously peruse these ensuing words of Beza, and tell me whither he have any ground of a particular quarrel against me upon this account.  
Sed praeterea quaenam ista est quaeso ordinaria vocatio, quam eos habuisse dicis, quos Deus paucis quibusdam except is, excitavit? Certe papistica. Nam haec tua verba sunt; Hodie si episcopi Gallicanarum ecclesiarum se & suas ecclesias à tyrannide Episcopi Romani vindicare velint, & eas ab omni idololatria & superstitione repurgare, non habent opus alia vocatione ab ea quam habent. Quid ergo? Papisticas ordinationes, in quibus neque morum examen praecessit, neque leges ullae servatae sunt inviolabiliter ex divino jure in electionibus & ordinationibus praescriptae, in quibus puri etiam omnes canones impudentissime violati sunt: quae nihil aliud sunt, quam foedissima Romani prostibulin undinatio, quavis meretricum mercede, quam Deus templo suo inferri prohibuit, inquinatior: quibus denique alii non ad praedicandum sed pervertendum evangelium: alii non ad docendum, sed adrursus sacrificandum, & ad abominandum {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} sunt ordinati, usque adeo firmas tecum esse censebimus, ut quoties tali cuipiam pseudoepiscopo, Deus concesserit ad verum Christianismum transire omnis illa istiusmodi ordinationis impuritas simul expurgata censeatur? Imo quia sic animum per Dei gratiam mutavit, quo ore, quo pudore, qua conscientia papismum quidem detestabitur, suam autem inordinatissimam ordinationem non ejurabit? aut si, ejuret, quomodo ex illius jure auctoritatem dicendi habebit. Nec tamen nego quin tales, si probe doctrinam veram tenere, si honest is moribus praediti, si ad gregem pascendum apti comperiantur, ex pseudoepiscopis novi pastores, legitime designentur; Thus he; who was thought then to speak the sense of the Churches of Geneva and France; in his book against Saravia about the diverse orders of Ministers in the Church:  
His plea for the Church-Authority of the Pope, notwithstanding his being an Idolater, a murderer, the man of sin an adversary of Christ; because a civil magistrate doth not by any moral Crime or those whereof the Pope is guilty, lose his jurisdiction and Authority, considering the different principles, grounds, ends, laws, Rules, privileges of the Authority of the one, and the other, and the several tenures, whereby the one doth hold, and the other pretends to hold his power, is brought in to serve the turn in hand, and may be easily laid aside?  
And when he shall manifest, that there is appointed by Christ, one single High-Preist or Prelate in the house of God the whole Church; and that office to be confined to one nation, one blood, one family, propagated by natural generation, without any provision of relief by any other way, person or family in case of miscarriage; and when he shall have proved that such an officer as the Pope of Rome, in any one particular that constituteth him such an officer, was once instituted by Christ, I shall farther attend unto his Reason for his Authority from that of the High-Priests among the Jews, which was not lost as to its continuance in the family of Aaron notwithstanding the miscarriage of some individual Person vested therewithal; In the close of the Chapter he reassumes his charge of my renouncing my own Ordination which with great confidence, and without the least scruple, he had asserted in his Answer; of that assersion he now pretends to give the Reasons, whereof the first is this.  
1. The world looks on him as an Independent of the highest note; therefore he hath renounced his ordination; and therefore I dare to say so. So much for that reason. I understand neither the logic nor morality of this first Reason.  
2. He knows from good hands that some of the Brethren have renounced their Ordination; therefore he durst say positively that I have renounced mine. Prov. 12. 18.  
3. He hath heard that I dissuaded others from their ordination, and therefore he durst say I renownced my own; and yet I suppose he may possibly dissuade some from episcopal Ordination: but I know it not, no more than he knows what he affirms of me which is false.  
4. He concludes from the principles in my book of schism; because I said that to insist upon a succession of ordination from Antichrist and the Beast of Rome would if I mistake not keep up in this particular what God would have pulled down, therefore I renounced my ordination; when he knows that I avowed the validity of ordination on another account.  
5. If all this will not do,, he tells me of something that was said at a public meeting (at dinner it seems) with the Canons of christ-church, viz: that I valued not my ordination by the Bishop of Oxford any more than a crumb upon my trencher; which words whether ever they were spoken or no, or to what purpose, or in reference to what Ordination, (I mean of the two orders) or in what sense, or with what limitation, or as part of what discourse, or in comparison of what else, or whither solely in reference to the Roman succession, in which sense I will have nothing to do with it, I know not at all; nor will concern myself to inquire; being greatly ashamed to find men professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, so far forgetful of all common Rules of civility and principles of human society, as to insist upon such vain groundless reports as the Foundations of accusations against their Brethren! nor do I believe that any one of the Reverend Persons quoted will own this information; although I shall not concern myself to make enquiry into their memories concerning any such passage or discourse.  
Much relief for the future against these and the like mistakes may be afforded from an easy observation of the different senses wherein the term of Ordination is often used; it is one thing when it is taken largely for the whole appointment of a man to the ministry; in which sense I desire our author to consider what is written by Beza among Reformed, and Gerhard among the Lutheran Divines; to omit innumerable others; another thing when taken for the imposition of hand, whither by Bishops or Presbyters; concerning which single Act, both as to its order, & efficacy, I have sufficiently delivered my judgement, if he be pleased to take notice of it. I fear indeed that when men speak of an ordained ministry; which in its true and proper sense I shall with them contend for, they often relate only to that solemnity, restraining the authoritative making of ministers singly thereunto; contrary to the intention and meaning of that expression, in Scripture, antiquity, and the best reformed Divines, both Calvinists, and Lutherans; and yet it is not imaginable how some men prevail by the noise and sound of that Word, upon the prejudiced minds of partial unstudied men. A little time may farther manifest, if it be not sufficiently done already; that another account is given of this matter, by Clemens, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Justin Martyr, and generally all the first writers of Christians; besides the Counsels of old & late, with innumerable Protestant Authors of the best note to the same purpose.  
This I say is the ground of this mistake; whereas sundry things concur to the calling of Ministers, as it belongs to the Church of God, the ground and pillar of truth, the spouse of Christ, Psal. 45. and mother of the family, or she that tarryeth at home, Psal. 68 unto whom all ministers are stewards, 1 Cor. 4. 1. even in that house of God, 1 Tim. 3. 15. and sundry qualifications are indispensably previously required in the persons to be called; overlooking the necessity of the qualifications required, and omitting the duty and authority of the Church, Acts 1. 15. Acts 6. 2. 13. 2. 14. 22. the Act of them who are not the whole Church, Ephes. 4. 11, 12. but only a part of it, 1 Cor. 3. 21. 2 Cor. 1. 24. 1 Pet. 5. 3. as to ministry, consisting in the approbation and solemn confirmation, of what is supposed to go before, hath in some men's language, gotten the name of ordination, and an interpretation of that name to such an extent, as to enwrap in it, all that is indispensably necessary to the constitution or making of ministers; so that where that is obtained, in what order soever, or by whom soever administered, who have first obtained it themselves, there is a lawful and sufficient calling to the ministry. Indeed, I know no error, about the institutions of Christ, attended with more pernicious consequences to the Church of God, than this; should it be practised, according to the force of the principle itself. Suppose six, eight, or ten men, who have themselves been formerly ordained; but now perhaps, not by any ecclesiastical censure, but by an act of the civil magistrate, are put out of their places, for notorious ignorance and scandal; should concur and ordain an hundred ignorant and wicked persons like themselves, to be ministers: must they not on this Principle be all accounted ministers of Christ, and to be invested with all ministerial power; and so be enabled to propagate their kind to the end of the world; and indeed why should not this be granted, seeing the whole bulk of the papal ordination is contended for as valid; whereas it is notoriously known, that sundry Bishops among them (who perhaps received their own ordination as the reward of a whore) being persons of vicious lives, and utterly ignorant of the gospel, did sustain their pomp and sloth, by selling holy orders as they called them, to the scum and refuse of men; but of these things, more in their proper place.  
Take then Reader, the substance of this chapter; in this brief recapitulation.  
1. He denies our Churches to be true Churches, and our Ministers true Ministers.  
2. He hath renounced his own ordination.  
3. When some young men came to advise about their ordination he dissuaded them from it.  
4. He saith he would maintain against all the Ministers of England, there was in Scripture no such thing as Ordination.  
5. That when he was chosen a Parliament man he would not answer whether he was a Minister or not; all which are notoriously untrue, and some of them, namely the two last, so remote from any thing to give a pretence or colour unto them, that I question whether Satan have impudence enough to own himself their Author; and yet from hearesays, reports, rumours, from table talk, Vox populi, and such other grounds of Reasoning this Reverend Author hath made them his own, and by such a charge, hath I presume, in the judgement of all unprejudiced men, discharged me from further attending to what he shall be prompted from the like principles to divulge, for the same end and purposes, which hitherto he hath managed, for the future. For my judgement about their ministry, and Ordination, about the nature and efficacy of Ordination, the state and power of particular Churches, my own station in the ministry, which I shall at all times through the grace and assistance of our Lord Jesus Christ, freely justify against men and devils, it is so well known, that I shall not need here further to declare it: for the true nature and notion of schism, alone by me inquired after, in this chapter, as I said, I find nothing offered thereunto: only whereas I restrained the ecclesiastical use of the word schism to the sense wherein it is used, in the places of Scripture, that mention it with relation to Church affairs, which that it ought not to be so, nothing but asseverations to the contrary are produced to evince; this is interpreted, to extend to all that I would allow as to the nature of schism itself, which is most false; though I said if I would proceed no farther, I might not be compelled so to do, seeing in things of this nature we may crave allowance to think and speak with the Holy Ghost: However, I expressly comprised in my proposition all the places wherein the nature of schism is delivered under what terms or words soever. When then I shall be convinced, that such discourses as those of this Treatise, made up of diversions into things wholly foreign to the inquiry by me insisted on, in the investigation of the true notion and nature of schism, with long talks about Anabaptists, Brownists, Sectaries, Independents, Presbyterians, Ordination, with charges and reflections grounded on this presumption, that this Author and his party, (for we will no more contend about that expression) are in solidum possessed of all true and orderly Church state in England, so that whosoever are not of them, are schismatics, and I know not what besides, he being — Gallinae filius albae nos viles pulli nati infelicibus ovis; I shall farther attend unto them. I must farther add that I was not so happy as to foresee that because I granted the Roman Party before the Reformation to have made outwardly a profession of the Religion of Christ, although I expressed them to be really a party combined together, for all ends of wickedness, and in particular for the extirpation of the true Church of Christ in the world, having no state of union but what the Holy Ghost calls Babylon in opposition to Zion, our Reverend Author would conclude as he doth pag. 34. that I allowed them to be a true Church of Christ; but it is impossible for wiser men than I, to see far into the issue of such discourses; and therefore we must take in good part what doth fall out; and if the Reverend Author, instead of having his zeal warmed against me, would a little bestir his abilities, to make out to the understandings and consciences of uninterested men, that All ecclesiastical power being vested in the Pope and councils, by the consent of that whole combination of men called the Church of Rome, and flowing from the Pope in its execution to all others; who in the derivation of it from him, owned him as the immediate fountain of it, which they swore to maintain in him, and this in opposition to all Church power in any other persons whatsoever; it was possible that any power should be derived from that combination, but what came expressly from the fountain mentioned. I desire our Author would consider the frame of spirit that was in this matter, in them, who first laboured in the work of Reformation, and to that end peruse the stories of Lasitius, and Regenuolscius about the Churches of Bohemia, Poland, and those parts of the world, especially the latter from pag. 29. 30. and forward. And as to the distinction used by some, between the Papacy, and the Church of Rome, which our Author makes use of to another purpose, than those did, who first invented it, (extending it only to the consideration of the possibility of salvation for individual persons living in that communion before the Reformation) I hope he will not be angry if I profess my disability to understand it. All men cannot be wise alike; if the Papacy comprise the Pope, and all papal Jurisdiction and power, with the subjection of men thereunto, if it denote all the Idolatries, false worship, and heresies of that society of men; I do know that all those are confirmed by Church Acts of that Church: and that in the Church public sense of that Church, no man was a member of it but by virtue of the union that consisted in that Papacy, it being placed always by them in all their definitions of their Church; as also hat there was neither Church Order, nor Church Power, nor Church Act, nor Church confession, nor Church Worship amongst them, but what consisted in that Papacy.  
Now because nothing doth more frequently, occur then the objection of the difficulty in placing the dispensation of baptism on a sure foot account, in case of the rejection of all authoritative influence from Rome into the ministry of the Reformed Churches, with the insinuation of a supposition of the nonbaptization of all such, as derive not a title unto it, by that means, they who do so being supposed to stand upon an unquestionable foundation, I shall a little examine the grounds of their security, and then compare them with what they have to plead, who refuse to acknowledge the deriving any sap or noushriment from that rotten corrupt stock.  
It is I suppose, taken for granted, that an unbaptised person can never effectually baptize, let him receive what other qualifications soever that are to be superadded, or necessary thereunto. If this be not supposed the whole weight of the objection improved by the worst supposition that can be made, falls to the ground. I shall also desire in the next place, that as we cannot make the Popish baptism, better than it is, so that we would not plead it to be better, or any other, than they profess it to be; nor pretend, that though it be rotten or null in the foundation, yet by continuance and time it might obtain validity and strength. When the claim is by succession from such a stock or root, if you suppose once a total intercision in the succession from that stock or root, there is an utter end put to that claim; let us now consider how the case is with them from whom this claim is derived.  
1. It is notoriously known, that amongst them the validity of the sacraments depends upon the intention of the Administrator: It is so with them, as to every thing they call a sacrament: now to take one step backwards: that baptism will by some of ours, be scarce accounted valid, which is not administered by a lawful minister; suppose now that some Pope ordaining a Bishop in his stable to satisfy a Whore, had not an intention to make him a Bishop, which is no remote surmise; he being no Bishop rightly ordained, all the Priests by him afterwards consecrated, were indeed no priests, and so indeed had no power to administer any Sacraments, and so consequently the baptism that may lie, for aught we know, at the root of that which some of us pretend unto, was originally absolutely null and void, and could never by tract of time, be made valid, or effectual, for like a muddy fountain, the farther it goes, the more filthy it is: or suppose that any Priest, baptising one who afterwards came to be Pope from whom all Authority in that Church doth flow and is derived, had no intention to baptize him? what will become of all that ensues thereon.  
It is endless to pursue the uncertainties, and entanglements, that ensue on this head of account; and sufficiently easy it is to manifest, that whosoever resolves his interest in gospel privileges, into this foundation, can have no assurance of faith nay nor tolerably probable conjecture that he is baptised, or was ever made partaker of any ordinance of the gospel. Let them that delight in such troubled waters, sport themselves in them: for my own part, considering the state of that Church for some years if not Ages, wherein the fountains of all Authority amongst them, were full of filth and blood, there Popes upon their own confession being made, set up and pulled down at the pleasure of vile, impudent domineering strumpets, and supplying themselves with officers all the world over of the same spirit, and stamp with themselves, and that for the most part for hire, being in the mean time all Idolaters to a man; I am not willing to grant, that their Good and upright intention is necessary to be supposed as a thing requisite unto my interest in any privilege of the gospel of Christ.  
2. It is an ecclesiastical determination of irrefragable Authority amongst them, that whosoever he be that administers baptism, so he use the matter and form, that baptism is Good and valid and not to be reiterated: yea Pope Nicholas in his Resolutions and determinations upon the enquiry of the Bulgarians, (whose decrees are authentic and recorded in their counsels, Tom: 2. Crabb: p. 144.) declares the judgement of that Church to the full: They tell him, that many in their Nation were baptised by an unknown person, a Jew or a Pagan they knew not whether; and inquire of him, whether they were to be rebaptised or no; whereunto he answers; si in nomine S. S. Trinitatis, vel tantum in Christi nomine, sicut in Act is Apostolorum legimus, baptizati sunt, unum quippe idemque est, ut S. Ambrose expressit, constat eos denuo non esse baptizandos: if they were baptised in the name of the Trinity or of Christ, they are not to be baptised again. Let a blasphemous Jew or Pagan do it, so it be done the work is wrought, grace conveyed, and baptism valid. The constant practice of women baptising amongst them, is of the same import: and what doth Mr Cawdry think of this kind of baptism? Is it not worth the contending about, to place it in the derived succession of ours? who knows but that some of these persons, baptised by a counterfeit impostor, on purpose to abuse and defile the institutions of our blessed Saviour, might come to be baptizers themselves, yea Bishops, or Popes; from whom all ecclesiastical Authority was to be derived; and what evidence or certainty can any man have, that his baptism doth not flow from this fountain.  
3. Nay upon the general account, if this be required as necessary to the administration of that ordinance, that he that doth baptize, be rightly and effectually baptised himself; who can in faith bring an infant to any, to be baptised, unless he himself saw that person rightly baptised.  
As to the matter of baptism then, we are no more concerned, then as to that of Ordination; by what ways or means soever any man comes to be a minister, according to the mind of Jesus Christ; by that way and means he comes to have power for a due administration of that ordinance: concerning which state of things, our Author may do well to consult Beza in the place mentioned. Many other passages there are in this Chapter, that might be remarked, and a return easily made according to their desert of untruth and impertinency; but the insisting on such things, looks more like children's playing at push-pin, than the management of a serious disputation: Take an instance, pag. 23. he seems to be much offended with my commending him; and tells me, as Jerome said of Ruffinus, I wrong him with praises; when yet the utmost I say of him is, that I had received a better character of him, than he had given of himself in his book, pag. 10. and that his proceeding was unbecoming his worth, gravity and profession, pag. 46. or so Grave and Reverend a person as he is reported to be, pag. 121. wherein it seems I have transgressed the rule, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
The business of his second Chapter is to make good his former charge of my inconstancy and inconsistency with myself as to my former and present Opinions, which he had placed in the Frontispiece of his other Treatise. The Impertinency of this Chapter had been intolerable, but that the loose discourses of it are relieved by a scheme of my self-Contradictions in the close. His design, he professeth, in his former discourse was not to blast my Reputation, or to cause my person to suffer, but to prevent the prevalency of my way by the Authority of my person, That is, it was not his intention, it was only his intention for such a purpose. I bless my God I have good security through Grace, that whether he, or others like minded with himself, intend any such thing or no, in those proceedings of his and theirs, which seemed to have in their own nature, a tendency thereunto, my reputation shall yet be preserved in that state and Condition, as is necessary to accompany me in the duties and works of my Generation, that I shall through the hand of God be called out unto; And therefore being prepared in some measure, to go through good report and bad report, I shall give him assurance, that I am very little concerned in such attempts, from what ever intention they do proceed; Only I must needs tell him, that he consulted not his own reputation with peaceable godly men, what ever else he omitted, in the ensuing Comparing of me to the seducers in Jude, called wandering Planets, for their inconstancy and inconsistency with themselves, according to the exposition that was needful for the present turn.  
But seeing the Scheme at the close must bear the weight of this charge, let us briefly see what it amounts unto; and whether it be a sufficient basis of the sustruction, that is raised upon it; Hence it is, that my inconsistency with myself, must be remarked in the title page of his first Treatise; from hence must my Authority (which what it is I know not) be impaired, and myself be Compared to cursed Apostates and Seducers, and great triumph be made and upon myself inconsistency.  
The Contradictions pretended are taken out of two books, the one written in the year 1643. The other in 1656. and are as follows.  
He spoke of Rome as a Collapsed, Corrupted Church-State. p. 40. He says Rome we account no Church at all. pag. 156.  
Crimen in auditum C. Caesar; is it meet that any one should be tolerated, that is thus woefully inconsistent with himself? what! speak of Rome as a Collapsed Church in Italy, and within thirteen, or fourteen years after to say, it is no Church at all; well! though I may say there is indeed no Contradiction between these Assertions, seeing in the latter place I speak of Rome as that Church is stated by themselves, when yet I acknowledge there may be corrupted Churches both in Rome and Italy in the same Treatise; Yea I do not find that in the place directed unto, I have in terms, or in just consequence at all granted the Church of Rome to be a Collapsed Church: nay the Church of Rome is not once mentioned in the whole page, nor as such is spoken of: and what shall we think of this proceeding? But yet I will not so far offend against my sense of my own weakness, ignorance and frailty, as to use any defensative against this Charge; let it pass at any rate that any sober man freed from pride, passion, self-fullness, and prejudice shall be pleased to put upon it;  
— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
But the second instance will make amends, and take more of the weight of this Charge upon its shoulders: Take it then as it lies in its triple column.  
gifts in the Person, and consent of people, is warrant enough to make a man a preacher in an extraordinary Case? only pag. 15. and pag. 40. Denying our ordination to be sufficient, he says he may have that which indeed Constitutes him a minister, viz: gifts and submission by the People p. 198. I am punctually of the same mind still p. 40. Yet had said in his first book p. 46. as to formal teaching is required 1 gifts, 2 Authority from the Church, if he do not equivocate.  
I must confess I am here at a stand, to find out the pretended Contradiction; especially laying aside the word only in the first column which is his and not mine. By a Preacher in the first Place I intend a minister: gifts and Consent or submission of the People, I affirm in both places to be sufficient, to constitute a man a minister in extraordinary Cases; That is, when imposition of hands by a Presbytery may not be obtained in due order according to the appointment of Jesus Christ. That the Consent and submission of the people, which include Election, have nothing of Authority in them I never said: the superadded Act of the imposition of hands by a Presbytery, when it may be regularly obtained, is also necessary. But that there is any Contradiction in my words, (although in truth they are not my words but an undue collection from them) or in this author's inference from them, or any colour of Equivocation, I profess I cannot discern: in this place Mr Cawdrey {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Pass we to the third.  
He made the Union of Christ and believers to be mystical pag. 21. He makes the Union to be personal. pag. 94. 95.  
I wish our Reverend Author for his own sake, had omitted this Instance; because I am enforced in mine own necessary defence to let him know, that what he assigns to me in his second column, is notoriously false, denied, and disproved, by me in the very place, and Treatise wherein I have handled the Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Spirit; and whether he will hear or forbear, I cannot but tell him, that this kind of dealing, is unworthy his calling and profession. His following Deductions and Inferences whereby he endeavours to give countenance to this false and calumnious charge, arise from ignorance of the Doctrine that he seeks to blemish and oppose. Though the same spirit dwell in Christ and us, yet He may have him in fullness, we in measure; fullness and measure relating to his Communication of Graces and Gifts, which are arbitrary to him; indwelling to his person: that the Spirit animates the Catholic Church, and is the Author of its spiritual life by a voluntary act of his power, as the soul gives life to the body, by a necessary act, by virtue of its union, for life is actus vivificant is in vivificatum per unionem utriusque, is the Common Doctrine of Divines. But yet the soul being united to the body, as pars Essentialis suppositi, and the spirit dwelling in the Person as a free inhabitant, The union between Christ and the Person, is not of the same kind with the union of soul and Body; let our Author Consult Zanchy on the second of the Ephesians, and it will not repent him of his labour; or if he please an Author whom I find him often citing, namely, Bishop Hall about union with Christ. And for my Concernment in this charge I shall subjoin the words from whence it must be taken; Pag. 133. of my book of Perseverance.  
1. The first signal Issue and effect which is ascribed to this Indwelling of the Spirit, is Union; not a personal Union with himself, which is impossible: He doth not assume our natures, and so prevent our Personality, which would make us one person with him, but dwells in our persons, keeping his own, and leaving us our Personality infinitely distinct; But it is a spiritual Union; the great union mentioned so often in the gospel, that is the sole fountain of our blessedness; our Union with the Lord Christ, which we have thereby. Many thoughts of heart there have been about this Union; what it is, wherein it doth consist, the causes, manner, and Effects of it; The Scripture expresses it to be very Eminent, near, durable, setting it out, for the most part, by similitudes, and metaphorical Illustrations, to lead poor weak Creatures into some useful needful acquaintance with that Mystery, whose depths in this life, they shall never fathom. That many in the days wherein we live, have miscarried in their conceptions of it, is evident; some to make out their Imaginary Union have destroyed the person of Christ, and fancying a way of uniting man to God by him, have left him to be neither God nor Man. Others have destroyed the Person of Believers, affirming that in their Union with Christ, they lose their own personality, that is, cease to be Men: or at least, those, are these individual men.  
I intend not now to handle it at large, but only (and that I hope without offence) to give in my thoughts concerning it, as far as it receiveth light from, and relateth unto, what hath been before delivered, concerning the Indwelling of the Spirit, & that without the least contending about other ways of Expression. So far there; with much more to the purpose; & in the very place of my book of schism, referred to by this Author, I affirm as the head of what I assert, that by the indwelling of the spirit, Christ personal and his Church do become one Christ mystical; 1 Cor. 12. 12. The very expression insisted on by him, in my former Treatise; and so you have an issue of this self-contradiction, concerning which, though reports be urged for some other things, Mr Cawdry might have said what Lucian doth of his true History; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Let us then consider the 4th which is thus Placed.  
1. In extraordinary cases every one that undertakes to preach the gospel must have an immediate Call from God pag. 28. 2. Yet required no more of before but Gif●s & Consent of the People which are ordinary, and mediate Calls p. 15. neither is here any need or use of an immediate Call, pag. 53 3. To assure a man that he is extraordily called, he gives 3 ways, 1 Immediate revelation, 2 Concurrence of Scripture rule. 3 Some outward acts of Providence. The two last whereof are mediate Calls, pag. 30.  
All that is here remarked and Cast into 3 columns, I know not well why, is taken out of that one Treatise of the duty of pastors & People. And could I give myself the least Assurance that any one would so far concern himself in this Charge, as to Consult the Places from whence the words are Pretended to be taken, to see whether there be any thing in them to answer the cry that is made, I should spare myself the labour of adding any one syllable towards their vindication; and might most safely so do, there being not the least colour of opposition between the things spoken of. In brief Extraordinary Cases are not all of one sort and nature; in some an extraordinary call may be required, in some not. Extraordinary calls are not all of one kind and nature neither; some may be immediate from God in the ways there by me described; some calls may be said to be extraordinary, because they do in some things come short of, or go beyond the ordinnary rule that ought to be observed in well Constituted Churches. again, concurrence of Scripture rules and acts of outward Providence, may be such sometimes, as are suited to an ordinary, sometimes to an extraordinary Call; All which are at large unfolded in the Places directed unto by our author, and all laid in their own order without the least shadow of Contradiction. But it may sometimes be said of good men as the Satyristsaid of evil Women; fortem animum praestant rebus quas turpiter audent. go we to the next.  
1. The Church Government from which I desire not to wander is the presbyterial. 2. He now is engaged in the independent way. 3. Is settled in that way which he is ready to maintain and knows it will be found his rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus.  
Hinc mihi sola malilabes: This is that inexpiable crime that I labour under; an account of this whole business I have given in my Review; So that I shall not here trouble the Reader with a repetition of what he is so little concerned in. I shall only add that whereas I suppose Mr Cawdrey did subscribe unto the 39 Articles at his Ordination; were it of any concernment to the Church of God, or the interest of truth, or were it a Comely and a Christian part to engage in such a work, I could manifest Contradictions, between what he then solemnly subscribed to, and what he hath since written and Preached, manifold above what he is able to draw out of this alteration of my judgement. Be it here then declared, that whereas I sometimes apprehended the Presbyterial synodical Government of Churches, to have been fit to be received and walked in, (then, when I knew not but that it answered those principles which, I had taken up, upon my best enquiry into the word of God) I now profess myself to be satisfied, that I was then under a mistake; and that I do now own, and have for many years lived in the way and practice of that called congregational. And for this Alteration of judgement, of all men, I fear lest a Charge from them, or any of them, whom within a few years, we saw reading the service book in their surplices, etc: against which things, they do now inveigh and declaim. What influence the perusal of Mr Cotton's book of the keys, had on my thoughts in this business I have formerly declared. The answer to it (I suppose that written by himself) is now recommended to me by this author, as that which would have perhaps prevented my, Change; But I must needs tell him, that as I have perused that book, many years ago, without the Effect intimated, so they must be things written with an other frame of spirit, evidence of truth, and manner of reasoning, than any I can find in that book, that are likely for the future, to lay hold upon my Reason and understanding. Of my settlement in my present persuasion I have not only given him an account formerly, but with all Christian Courtesy, tendered myself in a readiness Personally to meet him, to give him the proofs and reasons of my my persuasions; which he is pleased to decline & return in way of answer, That I Complemented him, after the mode of the times; when no such thing was intended. And therefore my words of desiring liberty to wait upon him, are expressed, but the end and purpose for which it was desired, are concealed, in an &c. But he adds another instance.  
Men ought not to cut themselves from the communion of the Church, to rent the body of Christ and break the sacred bond of Charity, Duty. 1. 48. 2 He says separation is no schism, nor schism any breach of Charity, pag. 48. 49. There is not one word in either of those cautions, that I do not still own and allow, p. 44. sure not without Equivocation.  
I have before owned this Caution, as consistent with my present judgement, as expressed in my book of schism and as it is indeed; wherein lies the appearance of Contradiction I am not able to discern: do not I in my book of schism Declare and prove, that men ought not to cut themselves from the Communion of the Church; That they ought not to rent the body of Christ, that they ought not to break the sacred bonds of Charity? Is there any word or tittle in the whole Discourse deviating from these Principles? How and in what sense, Separation is not schism, that the nature of schism doth not consist in a breach of Charity, the Treatise instanced will so far declare, as withal to Convince those that shall Consider what is spoken, that our author scarce keeps close either to Truth or Charity in his framing of this Contradiction: The Close of the Scheme lies thus.  
I conceive they ought not at all to be allowed the benefit of private meeting, who wilfully abstaike from the public Congregations. As for liberty to be allowed to those that meet in private, I confess myself to be otherwise minded.  
I remember that about 15 years ago, meeting occasionally with a learned Friend, we fell into some debate, about the liberty that began then to be claimed by men, differing from what had been, and what was then likely to be established; having at that time made no farther enquiry into the grounds and reasons of such liberty, than what had occurred to me in the writings of the Remonstrants, all whose plea was still pointed towards the advantage of their own interest, I delivered my judgement in opposition to the liberty pleaded for, which was then defended by my learned Friend; Not many years after, discoursing the same difference with the same Person, we found immediately that we had changed Stations, I pleading for an Indulgence of liberty, he for restraint; whether that learned and worthy Person be of the same mind still that then he was, or no, directly I know not: But this I know, that if he be not, Considering the compass of Circumstances that must be taken in, to settle a right judgement in this Case of Liberty, and what alterations influencing the Determination of this Case we have had of late in this nation, he will not be ashamed to own his Change; Being a Person who despises any reputation, but what arises from the Embracing and pursuit of truth; my Change I here own; my judgement is not the same in this Particular, as it was 14 years ago j and in my Change I have good Company whom I need not to name. I shall only say my Change was at least 12 years before the Petition and Advice; wherein the Parliament of the three Nations, is come up to my judgement: And if Mr Cawdrey, hath any thing to object to my Present judgement, let him at his next leisure Consider the Treatise that I wrote in the year 1648, about Toleration, where he will find the whole of it expressed: I suppose he will be doing, and that I may almost say of him, as Polycteutus did of Speusipus; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And now Christian Reader I leave it to thy judgement whether our Author had any just cause, of all his outcries, of my inconstancy and self-contradiction; and whether it had not been advisable for him to have passed by this seeming advantage of the design he professed to manage, rather than to have injured his own Conscience and Reputation to so little purpose.  
Being sufficiently tired with the consideration of things of no relation to the Cause at first proposed (but, this saith he, this the independents, this the Brownists and Anabaptists &c.) I shall now only inquire after that which is set up in opposition to any of the principles of my Treatise of schism before mentioned, or any of the propositions of the syllogisms wherein they are comprised, at the beginning of this Discourse; remarking in our way some such particular passages, as it will not be to the disadvantage of our Reverend author to be reminded of. Of the nature of the thing inquired after, in the third Chapter I find no mention at all; only he tells me by the way, that the Doctor's assertion that my book about schism, was one great schism, was not non sense; but usual rhetoric, wherein profligate sinners may be called by the name of sin; and therefore a book about schism, may be called a schism; I wish our author had found some other way of excusing his Doctor, then by making it worse himself.  
In the fourth Chapter he comes to the business itself; and if in passing through that, with the rest that follow, I can fix on any thing rising up with any pretence of opposition to what I have laid down, it shall not be omitted; for things by myself asserted, or acknowledged on all hands, or formerly ventilated to the utmost, I shall not again trouble the Reader with them: such are the positions about the general nature of schism, in things natural and political, antecedently considered to the limitation and restriction of it to its ecclesiastical use; the departure from Churches voluntary or compelled etc: all which were stated in my first Treatise, and are not directly opposed by our author; such also is that doughty controversy he is pleased to raise, and pursue about the seat and subject of schism with its restriction to the instituted worship of God, pag. 18. 19: so placed by me, to distinguish the schism whereof we speak, from that which is natural, as also from such differences and breaches as may fall out amongst men, few or more, upon civil and rational accounts; all which I exclude from the enjoyment of any room or place in our consideration of the true nature of schism in its limited ecclesiastical sense. The like also may be affirmed concerning the ensuing strife of words about separation and schism; as though they were in my apprehension of them, inconsistent; which is a fancy no better grounded than sundry other, which our Reverend author is pleased to make use of. His whole passage also receives no other security, than what is afforded to it by turning my universal proposition into a particular: what I say of all places in the Scripture where the name or thing of schism is used in an ecclesiastical sense, as relating to a gospel Church, he would restraint to that one place of the Corinths where alone the word is used, in that sense: However if that one place be all; my proposition is universal: take then my proposition in its extent and latitude, and let him try once more if he please, what he hath to object to it, for as yet I find no instance produced to alleviate its truth. He much also insists, that there may be a separation in a Church where there is no separation from a Church, and saith this was at first by me denied: that it was denied by me he cannot prove; but that the contrary was proved by me is evident to all impartial men, that have Considered my Treatise; although I cannot allow that the separation in the Church of Corinth was carried to that height as is by him pretended; namely as to separate from the ordinances of the Lord's supper; their disorder and division about and in its Administration are reproved, not their separation from it: only on that supposition made, I confess I was somewhat surprised with the delivery of his judgement in reference to many of his own party, whom he condemns of schism for not administering the Lord's supper to all the Congregation, with whom they pray and preach. I suppose the greatest part of the most godly and able ministers of the Persbyterian way in England, and Scotland, are here cast into the same condition of schismatics with the Independents. And the truth is, I am not yet without hopes of seeing a fair coalescency in love, and Church Communion, between the reforming Presbyterians and Independents; though for it they shall with some, suffer under the unjust imputatation of schism.  
But it is incredible to think whithermen will suffer themselves to be carried studio partium; and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; Hence have we the strange notions of this author about schism; decays in Grace are schism, and errors in the Faith are schism; and schism and apostasy are things of the same kind, differing only in degree; because the one leads to the other; as one sin of one kind doth often to another; drunkenness to whoredom, and envy and malice to lying; that differences about civil matters, like that of Paul and Barnabas are schism; and this by one blaming me for a departure from the sense of antiquity, unto which these insinuations are so many monsters. Let us then proceed.  
That Acts 14. 4. Acts 19 9, 18: are pertinently used to discover & prove the nature of schism in an evangelically ecclesiastical sense or were ever cited by any of the ancients to that purpose, I suppose our author on second consideration will not affirm, I understand not the sense of this Argument, the multitude of the city was divided, and part held with the Jews, and part with the Apostle, therefore schism in a gospel Church state, is not only a division in a Church; or that it is a separation into new Churches, or that it is something more than the breach of the Union appointed by Christ in an instituted Church; much less doth any thing of this nature appear from Paul's separating the Disciples whom he had converted to the Faith from the unbelieving hardened Jews, an account whereof is given us, Act. 19 9 So than that in this Chapter there is any thing produced de novo to prove that the precise Scripture notion of schism in it's ecclesiastical sense, extends itself any further than differences, divisions, separations in a Church and that a particular Church I find not; and do once more desire our author that if he be otherwise minded, to spare such another trouble to ourselves, and others, as that wherein we are now engaged, he would assign me some time and place to attend him for the clearing of the truth between us.  
Of schism Act. 20. 30. Heb. 10. 28. Jud. 19 there is no mention; nor are those places interpreted of any such thing by any Expositors new or old, that ever I yet saw; nor can any sense be imposed on them enwrapping the nature of schism with the least colour or pretence of Reason.  
But now by our author, schism and apostasy, are made things of on kind, differing only in degrees, pag. 107. so confounding schism and heresy, contrary to the Constant sense of all antiquity. Act. 20. 30. The Apostle speaks, of men speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples; that is teaching them false doctrines, contrary to the truths wherein they had been by him instructed; in his Revealing unto them the whole counsel of God: vers. 27. This by the ancients is called heresy, and is contradistinguished unto schism by them constantly: So Austin an 100 times. To draw men from the Church, by drawing them into pernicious errors, false doctrine, being the cause of their falling off, is not schism, nor so called in Scripture, nor by any of the ancients, that ever yet I observed. That the design of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is to preserve and keep them from apostasy unto Judaism, besides that it is attested by a cloud of witnesses, is to evident from the thing itself to be denied. chapt. 10. 25: he warns them of a common entrance into that fearful condition, which he describes, vers. 26: their neglect of the Christian Assemblies, was the door of their apostasy to Judaism. what is this to schism? would we charge a man with that crime whom we saw neglecting our assemblies, and likely to fall into Judaism; are there not more forcible considerations to deal with him upon; and doth not the Apostle make use of them? Jude. 19: hath been so far spoken unto already, that it may not fairly be insisted on again. Parvas habet spes Troja, sitables habet.  
In the entrance of the fifth Chapter he takes advantage from my question, p. 147. who told him that raising causeless differences in a Church, and then separating from it, is not in my judgement schism; when the first part of the assertion, included in that interrogation, expresseth the formal nature of schism, which is not destroyed, nor can any man be exonerated of its guilt, by the subsequent crime of separation, whereby it is aggravated. 1 Joh. 2. 19: is again mentioned to this purpose of schism, to as little purpose, so also is Heb. 10. 25: both places treat of Apostates, who are charged and blamed under other terms than that of schism. There is in such departures, as in every division whatever, of that which was in Union, somewhat of the general nature of schism: but that particular crime and guilt of schism in its restrained ecclesiastical sense, is not included in them.  
In his following discourse he renews his former Charges of denying their ordinances and ministry, of separating from them and the like; as to the former part of this Charge I have spoken in the entrance of this discourse; for the latter, of separating from them, I say we have no more separated from them, than they have from us; our right to the celebration of the ordinances of God's worship, according to the light we have received from him, is in this nation as good as theirs; and our plea from the gospel we are ready to maintain against them, according as we shall at any time be called thereunto. If any of our judgement deny them to be Churches, I doubt not but he knows who comes not behind in returnall of Charges on our Churches. Doth the Reverend author think or imagine, that we have not in our own judgement more reason to deny their Churches and to charge them with schism though we do neither, than they have to charge us therewith, and to deny our Churches? can any thing be more fondly Pretended than that he hath proved that we have separated from them; upon which, pag. 105, he requires the performance of my promise to retreat from the state wherein I stand, upon the establishment of such proof. Hath he proved the due administration of Ordinances amongst them whom he pleads for? Hath he proved any Church Union between them as such, and us? hath hath he proved as to have broken that Union? what will not selfe-fulnesse and prejudice put men upon?  
How came they into the sole possession of all Church state in England; so that who ever is not of them, and with them must be charged to have separated from them; Mr Cawdrey says indeed, that the episcopal men and they agree in substantials, and differ only in circumstantials; but that they and we differ in substantials; but let him know they admit not of his compliances; they say he is a schismatic, and that all his party are so also; let him answer their Charge solidly upon his own principles; and not think to own that which he hath the weakest claim imaginable unto, and was never yet in possession of. We deny that since the gospel came into England, the Presbyterian Government as by them stated, was ever set up in England, but in the wills of a party of men; so that here as yet, unless as it lies in particular Congregations, where our right is as good as theirs, none have separated from it, that I know of; though many cannot consent unto it. The first Ages we plead ours, the following were unquestionably episcopal.  
In the beginning of Chapter the 6: he attempts to disprove my assertion that the Union of the Church Catholic visible which consists in the professing of the saving doctrine of the gospel, etc: is broken only by apostasy. to this end he confounds apostasy and schism, affirming them only to differ in degrees; which is a new notion unknowen to Antiquity and contrary to all sound Reason; by the instances he produceth to this purpose he endeavours to prove that there are things which break this union, whereby this union is not broken; whilst a man continues a member of that church which he is by virtue of the union thereof, and his interest therein, by no act doth he, or can he break that union.  
The partial breach of that union which consists in the profession of the truth, is error and heresy and not schism. Our Author abounds here in new notions which might easily be discovered to be as fond, as new, were it worth while to consider them; of which in brief, before. Only I wonder why giving way to such thoughts as these, he should speak of men with contempt under the name of Notionists, as he doth of Dr Du Moulin; but the truth is, the Doctor hath provoked him, and were it not for some considerations that are obvious to me, I should almost wonder, why this Author should sharpen his leisure and zeal against me, who scarce ever publicly touched the grounds and foundations of that Cause which he hath so passionately espoused, and pace by him, who both in Latin and English, hath laid his Axe to the very Root of it, upon principles sufficiently destructive to it, and so apprehended, by the best learned in our author's way, that ever these nations brought forth; but as I said, Reasons lie at hand, why it was more necessary to give me this opposition; which yet hath not altered my Resolution, of handling this controversy in another manner, when I meet with another manner of Adversary.  
Pag. 110. He fixes on the examination of a particular passage about the disciples of John mentioned Acts 19 2. of whom I affirmed that it is probable they were rather ignorant of the miraculous dispensations of the Holy Ghost, then of the person of the Holy Ghost; alleging to the contrary that the words are more plain and full then to be so eluded, and that for aught appears, John did not baptize into the name of the Holy Ghost: I hope the Author doth not so much dwell at home, as to suppose this to be a new notion of mine; who almost of late in their critical notes have not either (at least) considered it, or confirmed it? neither is the question into whose name they were expressly baptised, but in what doctrine they were instructed: He knows who denies that they were at all actually baptised, before they were baptised by Paul. Nor ought it to be granted without better proof than any as yet hath been produced, that any of the Saints under the old Testament, were ignorant of the being of the Holy Ghost. neither do the words require the sense by him insisted on; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, do no more evince the person of the Holy Ghost to be included in them, then in those other Joh. 7. 39 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; the latter in the proper sense He will not contend for; nor can therefore, the expression being uniform, reasonably for the latter. Speaking of men openly and notoriously wicked, and denying them to be members of any Church whatever: he bids me, answer his arguments to the contrary from the 1 Cor. 5. 7. 2 Thes. 13. 17. and I cannot but desire him that he would impose that task on them that have nothing else to do: for my own part, I shall not entangle myself with things to so little purpose: Having promised my Reader to attend only to that which looks toward the merit of the cause, I must crave his pardon, that I have not been able to make good my resolution: meeting with so little or nothing at all which is to that purpose, I find myself entangled in the old diversions that we are now plentifully accustomed unto: but yet I shall endeavour to recompense this loss, by putting a speedy period to this whole trouble, despairing of being able to tender him any other satisfaction, whilst I dwell on this discourse. In the mean time to obviate all strife of words if it be possible for the future, I shall grant this Reverend Author that in the general large notion of schism which his opposition to that insisted on by me hath put him upon, I will not deny but that He, and I are both schismatics, and any thing else shall be so, that he would have to be so, rather than to be engaged in this contest any farther. In this sense he affirms that there was a schism between Paul and Barnabas, and so one of them at least, was a schismatic; as also he affirms the same of 2 lesser men, though great in their generation Chrysostom and Epiphanius; so error and heresy, if he please shall be schism from the Catholic Church, and scandal of life shall be schism: And his argument shall be true, that schism is a breach of union in a Church of Christ's institution, therefore in that which is so only by call, not to any end of joint worship as such; of any union; that which consists in the profession of the saving truths of the gospel, and so there may be a schism in the Catholic Church; and so those Presbyterians that reform their Congregations, and do not administer the sacraments to all promiscuously, shall be guilty of Schime; and indeed, as to me, what else he pleaseth, for my inquiry concerns only the precise limited nature of schism, in its evangelically ecclesiastical sense.  
Neither shall I at present, (Allotting very few hours to the dispatch of this business, which yet I judge more than it deserves) consider the scattered ensuing passages about Ordination, Church Government, number of Elders, and the like, which all men know, not at all to belong unto the main controversy which was by me undertaken; and that they were against all laws of disputation, plucked violently into this contest, by our Reverend Author. One thing I cannot pass by, and it will upon the matter put a close to what I shall at present offer to this Treatise; having said that Christ hath given no direction for the performance of any duty of worship of sovereign institution, but only in them and by them (meaning particular Churches) he answers that, if I would imply that a Minister in or of a Particular Church, may perform those ordinances without those congregations, he contradicts himself for saying a particular Church is the seat of all ordinances, but why so, I pray? may not a particular Church be the seat of all ordinances subjectively, and yet others be the object of them, or of some of them? but saith he, if he mean those ordinances of worship are to be performed only by a minister of a particular congregation, what shall become of the people? I suppose they shall be instructed and built up according to the mind of Christ, and what would people desire more. But whereas he had before said, that I denied a Minister to be a Minister to more than his own Church: and I had asked him who told him so; adding that explication of my judgement, that for so much as men are appointed the objects of the dispensation of the word, I grant a Minister in the dispensation of it to act ministerially, towards not only the members of the Catholic Church, but the visible members of the world also in contradistinction thereunto; he now tells me a story of passages between the learned Dr Wallis and myself about his question in the Vespers 1654. namely that as to that question An potestas ministri Evangelici ad unius tantum ecclesiae particularis membra extendatur? I said that, Dr Wallis had brought me a challenge, and that If I did dispute on that question, I must dispute ex animo; although I grant that a Minister as a Minister may preach the word, to more than those of his own congregation, yet knowing the sense wherein the learned Dr Wallis maintained that question, it is not impossible, but I might say, if I did dispute I must do it ex animo; for his bringing me a challenge, I do not know that either he did so, or that I put that interpretation on what he did; but I shall crave leave to say, that if the learned Dr Wallis do find any ground, or occasion to bring a challenge unto me, to debate any point of difference between us, I shall not wave answering his desire, although he should bring Mr Cawdry for his second; for the present I shall only say, that as it is no commendation to the moderation or ingenuity of any one whatever, thus to publish to the world private hearsays, and what he hath been told of private conferences; so if I would insist on the same course, to make publication of what I have been told hath been the private discourse of some men, it is not unlikely that I should occasion their shame and trouble: yet in this course of proceeding a progress is made in the ensuing words; and Mr Stubbes (who is now called my Amanuensis, who some five years ago, transcribed about a sheet of paper for me, and not one line, before or since;) is said to be employed or at least encouraged by me to write against the learned Dr Wallis his Thesis being published; this is as true as much of that that went before, and as somewhat of that, that follows after; and whereas it is added that I said what he had written on that subject, was a scurrilous rididulous piece, it is of the same nature with the rest of the like reports. I knew that Mr Stubbes was writing on that subject; but not until he had proceeded far in it; I neither employed him, nor encouraged him in it, any otherwise then the consideration of his papers, after he had written them, may be so interpreted; and the reason why I was not willing he should proceed, next to my desire of continuance of peace in this place, was his using such expressions of me, and somethings of mine, in sundry places of his discourse, as I could not modestly allow to be divulged; the following words to the same purpose with them before mentioned, I remember not; nor did ever think to be engaged in the consideration of such transgressions of the common rules of human society as those now passed through; Reports, heresayes, talks, private discourse between friends, allegations countenanced by none of these, nor any thing else, are the weapons wherewith I am assaulted. I have heard, I am told, if reports be true, 'twas vox populi at Oxford, is it not so, I presume he will not deny it, are the ornaments of this discourse: strange! that men of experience and gravity should be carried by the power of these temptations not only to the forgetfulness of the royal law of Christ, and all gospel rule of deportment towards his professed Disciples: but also be engaged into ways and practices, contrary to the dictates of the law of nature, and such as sundry heathens would have abhorred. For my own part, had not God by his providence placed me in that station, wherein others also that fear him are concerned in me, I should not once turn aside to look upon such heaps as that which I have now passed over: my judgement in most heads and articles of Christian Religion is long since published to the world, and I continue through the grace and patience of God preaching in public answerably to the principles I do profess; and if any man shall oppose what I have delivered, or shall so deliver, in print or in the pulpit, or in divinity lectures, as my judgement, I shall consider his opposition, and do therein, as God shall guide: with evil surmises, charges upon hearesays, and reports, attended with perpetual excursions from the Argument in hand, I shall no more contend.  
Some few observations on scattered passages, will now speedily issue this discourse. Pag. 112. To that Assertion of mine, that if Rome be no particular Church, it is no Church at all, for the Catholic Church it is not, he replies that though it be not such a particular Congregation as I intend, yet it may be a particular patriarchal Church: but, 1: then it seems it is a particular Church, which grants my inference.  
2. It was a particular Church of Christ's institution, that I inquired after; doth our author think that Christ hath appointed any patriarchal Church? a patriarchal Church, as such, is such from its Relation to a Patriarch: and he can scarce be thought to judge patriarchs to be of Divine institution, who hath cast off and abjured Episcopacy.  
The Donatists are mentioned again, p. 113. And I am again Charged with an attempt to vindicate them from schism; my thoughts of them I have before declared to the full; & have no reason to retract any thing from what was then spoken, or to add any thing thereunto; if it may satisfy our author, I here grant they were Schismatickes, with what aggravations he pleaseth; & wherein their schism consisted, I have also declared: but he says, I undertake to exempt some others from schism (I know whom) that suffer with them in former and after ages, under the same imputation; I do so indeed, and I suppose our author may guess at whom I intend: himself amongst others; I hope he is not so taken up in his thoughts, with charging schism on others, as to forget, that many, the greatest part and number of the true churches of Christ do condemn him for a schismatic; a donatistical schismatic: I suppose he acknowledges the Church of Rome to be a true Church; the Lutheran I am persuaded he will not deny, nor perhaps the Grecian, to be so: The episcopal Church of England, he contends for; and yet all these with one voice cry out upon him for a schismatic: and as to the plea of the last, how he can satisfy his conscience, as to the rejection of his lawful superiors, upon his own principles, without pretending any such crime against them, as the Donatists did against Caecilianus, I profess I do not understand: new mention is made of episcopal ordination, p. 120, And they are said to have had their successive ordination from Rome who ordained therein; so indeed some say, and some otherwise; whether they had or no, is nothing to me, I lay no weight upon it; they held I am sure, that place in England, that without their approbation no man could publicly, preach the gospel; to say they were Presbyters, and ordained as Presbyters, I know not what satisfaction can arise unto Conscience thereby. Party and argument, may be countenanced by it; they profess they ordained as Bishops, that for their lives and souls they durst not ordain but as such; so they told those whom they ordained, and affirm they have open injury done them, by any one's denial of it: As it was, the best is to be made of it; this shift is not handsome; nor is it ingenious, for any one, that hath looked into Antiquity, to charge me with departing from their sense in the notion of schism, declared about the 3d & 4 Ages, & at the same time to maintain an equality between Bishops and Presbyters; or to say that Bishops ordained as Presbyters, not as Bishops: nor do I understand the excellency of that order which we see in some Churches, where they have two sorts of Elders; the one made so, by ordination without Election, and the other by Election without ordination; those who are ordained, casting off all power and Authority of them that ordained them; and those who are elected, immediately rejecting the greatest part of those that chose them.  
Nor did I, as is pretend, plead for their Presbyterian way in the year 46; all the ministers (almost) in the county of Essex, know the contrary; one especially, who being a man of great ability, and moderation of spirit, and for his knowledge in those things, not behind any man, I know, in England of his way, with whom in that year, and the next following, I had sundry conferences at public meetings of ministers, as to the several ways of Reformation, then under proposal. But the frivolousness of these imputations, hath been spoken of before, as also the falseness of the Calumny, which our author is pleased to repeat again, about my turning from ways in Religion.  
My description of a particular Church he once more blames as applicable to the Catholic Church invisible, and to the visible Catholic Church (I suppose he means as such) when a participation in the same ordinances numerically, is assigned as its difference; He asks, whether it becomes my ingenuity, to interpret the capability of a church's reduction to its primitive constitution, by its own fitness and capacity to be so reduced, rather than by its external hindrances or furtherances; But with what ingenuity or modesty, that question is asked, I profess I understand not; and pag. 134, he hath this passage: (only I take notice of his introduction, to his answer, with thanks for the civility of the inquiry in the manner of its expresion; my words were these: whether our Reverend author do not in his conscience think there was no true Church in England till, etc, which puts me into suspicion, that the Reverend doctor was offended, that I did not always (for oft I do) give him that title, of the Reverend author, or the Doctor, which made him cry out he was never so dealt withal by any party as by me; though upon review, I do not find, that I gave him any uncivil language, unbeseeming me to give or him to receive; and I hear that somebody hath dealt more uncivilly with him in that respect, which he took very ill.  
Let this Reverend author, make what use of it he please, I cannot but again tell him, that these things become neither him, nor any man professing the Religion of Jesus Christ, or that hath any respect to truth or sobriety; can any man think, that in his conscience, he gives any credit to the insinuation which here he makes, that I should thank him for calling me Reverend author, or Reverend Doctor, or be troubled for his not useing those expressions? Can the mind of an honest man be thought to be conversant with such mean and low thoughts? for the Title of Reverend, I do give him notice that I have very little valued it, ever since I have considered the saying of Luther; Nunquam periclitatur Religio nisi inter Reverendissimos. So that he may as to me forbear it for the future, and call me, as the Quakers do, and it shall suffice. And for that of Doctor; it was conferred on me by the University in my absence, and against my consent, as they have expressed it under their public seal: nor doth any thing but gratitude, and respect unto them, make me once own it; and freed from that obligation, I should never use it more, nor did I use it, until some were offended with me, & blamed me for my neglect of them. And for that other, whom he mentions, who before this, gave so far place to indignation, as to insinuate some such thing, I doubt not but by this time he hath been convinced of his mistake therein, being a Person of another manner of ability and worth, than some others, with whom I have to do; and the truth is, my manner of dealing with him in my last reply, which I have since myself not so well approved of, requires the passing by such returns. But you will say then why do I preface this discourse, with that Expression; with thanks for the civility of the enquiry in the manner of its expression? I say! this will discover the iniquity of this author's procedure, in this particular: His enquiry was, whether I did not in my Conscience think that there were no true Churches in England, until the Brownists our Fathers, the Anabaptists our elder brothers, and ourselves arose, and gathered new Churches; without once taking notice, or mentioning his titles that he says he gave me, I used the words, in a sense obvious to every man's first consideration, as a reproof of the expressions mentioned; that which was the true cause of my words our author hides in an etc: that which was not by me once taken notice of, is by him expressed; to serve an end of drawing forth an evil surmise and suspicion, that hath not the least colour to give it countenance; Passing by all indifferent Readers, I refer the honesty of this dealing with me, to the judgement of his own conscience; setting down, what I neither expressed, nor took notice of, nor had any singular occasion in that place so to do, the words being often used by him, hiding, and concealing what I did take notice of, and express, and which to every man's view was the occasion of that passage, that conclusion or unworthy insinuation is made, which a Good man ought to have abhorred.  
Sundry other particulars there are, partly false, and calumniating, partly impertinent, partly consisting in mistakes, that I thought at the first view, to have made mention of; but on several accounts, I am rather willing here to put an end to the Readers trouble, and my own.   

The Preface.  
THE Servants of the Lord (saith Paul) must not strive, but be Gentile towards all men, 2 Tim. 2. 24. how much more towards their Brethren? But what if a Brother, should become an Adversary (whether Adversarius litis, or Personae,) and speak hard words, yea and write a book against his fellow Servants? Job telleth us, though he could, yet he would not speak as they do, Job. 16. 4, 5. And for the book against him, He would take it and bind it upon his shoulder, And yet I do not think he meant to cast it behind his back, but that he would bearé it as a light load, and in case of his Innocency, He would we are it as his crown: And for that end, would declare unto Him the Number of his steps, Job. 31. 35, 36, 37? Yea though such a book might seem to impartial and Judicious minds written with a Spirit of bitterness, and contempt, and in a Style suitable, yet the Servants of the Lord have not so learned Christ, nor the Truth (as it is in Jesus) as to return evil for evil, or Reviling for Reviling. Hard words are not Given, but as the Lord commandeth, if not in his Ordinances, yet in his Providence: And either they are Deserved, & then they are an excellent balm which will not break the head: or undeserved, and then the Lord will Requite Good to him that suffereth evil. It is no new Thing for God's own Servants to be taken with paroxysms (as Paul and Barnabas were, Act. 15.) that is, with Pangs of Passion, And that is the worst I conceive of the tartest Passages of Mr Cawdryes' Reply. For I see by his dealing with Mr Hooker, that he can write with more meekness, and moderation, when the Lord helpeth him: Let me therefore briefly give Account of such Passages of mine, as have seemed most offensive to Him: and that in such terms, as may not unbeseeme either myself, or the cause.   

CHAP. 1.  
THE first offence he taketh, is against my Inconstancy, and (that which is the fruit of it) my manifest and manifold Contradictions to myself to the number of about 21: Inconstancy in the general He Intimateth in the Text of James in his Frontispiece, James 1. 8.  A Double minded man is unstable in all his ways. 
To which I will rejoin no other Answer than a Text of like Authority, and alleged (I hope) with more Pertinency, Math. 11. 7. What went you out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind?  
The Contradictions are set forth in great letters in the Title Page and afterwards particularly in an ample Scheme in 3 columns in the end of his reply, let us consider of them in order.  

The 1rst Contradiction.  
1. The keys were given to Peter at an Apostle as an Elder, as a Believer. So the Sense is most full. The keys, Pag. 4. 1. The power of the keys is given to Peter, not at an Apostle nor as Elder, but as a professed Believer The way, P. 27. 1 Peter Received not the keys, merely as a Believer, but as a Believer publicly professing his Faith, &c. The way cleared Part. 2 p. 39 To like Purpose M. Hooker Surv. Part. 1. p. 203  
The Reconciliation of this Seeming Contradiction were obvious and easy; take the words as they stand in the Scheme; for so it might be said, Brethren, are sometimes put for private members of the Church, and Contradistinguished from such as bear office in the Church. As when it is said in the synodical Letter (Act. 15. 23.) The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. Sometimes Brethren are put more generally, as Comprehending all the members of the Church, both officers and private members as Gal. 6. 1: and frequently else where: In the former sense, the Passage in the keys speaketh, when it saith, the sense of the words will be most full, if Peter be conceived as Receiving the keys in the Name both of the officers, and private members, to wit, in the Name of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren. In the latter sense, the words of the Scheme might be taken to run, That the Power of the keys was given to Peter, not as an Apostle (for then it had been Given only to the Apostles:) nor as an Elder (for then it had been only to Elders) but as a professed Believer. And under the general Name of professed Believers, not only private Brethren, but Apostles, and Elders may be comprehended. For all the Apostles & all the Elders are professed Believers: And so all of them may claim their Interest in the Power of the keys, according to the several measure and latitude of Power assigned to them in the Scriptures. But I will not so answer; because in the Way the context speaketh of such Brethren, as have not power to exercise the Pastoral Ministry of the word & Sacraments. But notwithstanding that the Assoylment of the contradiction is no less fair and clear. For Mr Cawdrey well knoweth (and so doth any Logician:) That to a contradiction, It is a necessary Requisite (amongst others:) That both speak ad Idem. But here it is otherwise. In the keys I spoke of such a power of the keys, as Peter Received Formally, standing in the room both of an Apostle and of an Elder, and of a professed Believer: that is, such a Power as Peter having Received might exercise in his own person, and each one of them respectively. In the Way, I spoke of such a power, as the Brethren of the Church have Received not formally (farther than concerneth their own liberty) but virtually only.  
For though the Brethren have not a formal Power to excercise the pastoral ministry of the word and Sacraments, yet they have a virtual Power to exercise them by choosing and calling forth such Officers as have a formal Power to exercise the same. And there is nothing in the keys, or in the way, or in the Defence, that contradicteth this. So that both these two Passages (in the keys, and in the way) are so far from making a Contradiction (and that so flat as never any more) as that they do not indeed amount to an Opposition. In an Opposition both parts cannot be true: here both are true. Peter considered as standing in the room of an Apostle, Elder, and professed Believer, did receive Formally all the Power of the keys: The Body of the Brethren have received, though the power of their liberty Formally; yet all other Parts of Church Power which belongeth to Officers, they have Received only virtually and this very distinction is expressed in terminis, in the very same Page (27. of the way) whence this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is fetched. As for his Exageration of the Contradiction, That is was as flat, as never any more, though he to make this Comparative Speech seem less hyperbolical, do tell us in a Parenthesis, That Contradictions do not Recipere magis & minùs (and therefore if they make any Contradiction at all It must needs be as flat, as ever any was:) He may be pleased to Consider, That such a Parenthesis, though it make his Speech, less hyperbolical, yet it maketh it the more irrational; If I should say Nero was as wicked a man as ever any was, and yet presuppose all men were equally wicked (Wickedness in men did not Recipere magis & minùs) there were very little Reason in Such Exaggeration. In my former Answer to this Contradiction (Entitled, The way of the congregational Churches cleared) I said the words whereon the assertor grounded this Contradiction, were his own not mine. For He reporteth me to say (in the keys pag. 4.) That the keys were delivered to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, as a Believer. But in his Preface (Sect. 5. Num. 1.) He confesseth;  
That the words are not mine in terminis: but in sense, (he saith) they be. For I said take Peter not as an Apostle Only, but as an Elder also, and a Believer too, all may well stand together.  
Whereupon he Inferreth; Doth not this discourse clearly hold forth this Proposition, as the sense of that Text, The keys were delivered to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, as a Believer too? all may well stand together.  
Ans. That discourse of mine is so far from clearly holding forth that Proposition, that it clearly holdeth forth the contrary in express terms: my express terms be, Take Peter considered not only as an Apostle &c. now if not only as an Apostle, than not as an Apostle, For if they were delivered to him as an Apostle, then to all the Apostles, and only to the Apostles: which my words in Terminis do expressly Deny.  
But saith he, This Apology maketh it worse, For if it be so that whatsoever is Attributed to any as such, is given to all such universally, reciprocally, and only to such: Now Assume.  
But the keys were given to Peter as an Apostle, Therefore they were given only to the Apostles, and not to the Believers as such.  
But here the Assumption is Palpably false, not at all delivered by me, but dragged out of my words against the letter and against the sense of them. I say the keys were not given to Peter as an Apostle only: why then not to him as an Apostle, but as He is jointly considered with other Officers and Brethren. When therefore he Appealeth to the judgement of any Logician, whether to say Peter Received the keys not as an Apostle only, but an Elder also, and a Believer, be not as much as to say, Peter had the Power of the keys given Him, as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a Believer: Verily if that were the judgement of all Logicians I should conclude, either that logic had forsaken the world, or at least that myself were forsaken of logic.  
When Christ Promised the keys to Peter, though he spoke Indefinitely, keys, yet he meaneth universally all the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And to put all the keys into Peter's hand as an Apostle, though it would communicate them indeed to all the Apostles, yet since the Death of all the Apostles, all the Churches and all the Elders, have been left destitute of the Power of the keys.  
And if so, then why do we blame the Seekers who have cast off all Churches, and all Ordinances, till new Apostles come?  
Again the Replyer Argueth thus on the contrary (from that Passage in the way pag. 27:) If the keys were given to Peter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, then to all Believers, and only to Believers. But (saith the Way) the keys were given to Peter not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, therefore they were given to all Believers (Women and all) and only to Believers.  
Ans. It hath been showed above, That in that Place in the Way, I speak expressly of professed Believers, to have received all the power of the keys not Formally, but virtually. So that if there be some Power of the keys which they cannot exercise Formally as Brethren, yet they may exercise the same virtually, by choosing and calling forth such, as may formally exercise the same for them: which presupposed I answer to the Major, If the Power of the keys (which was to continue in the Church) were given to Peter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer, than it was Given to all Believers, and only to believers, & to such whom Believers shall orderly choose, and call forth to execute the same. As to instance in a like example, If heat be Given to Fire, as such, then to all Fire, and only to Fire, & to such other things, as Fire communicateth his virtue to. When therefore the Publishers of the keys say, The Power of the keys may be Disposed in a due Allotment into divers hands. The Replyer had no cause to say, Herein they neither Agree with me, nor with them. They say it is put into diverse hands, And he saith it is Given only to Believers: And is not this a Contradiction?  
Ans: No verily; For when I say It is given to Believers as such, and express virtually, as well as Formally, The meaning is clear, It is given to all Believers, and only to Believers, and by them Communicated to such, as they do orderly choose and call forth, to the exercise of the same. And the publishers of the keys I doubt not, will say as much. When I said (in the way) That the brethren might not administer Sacraments in Defect of all Officers, And therefore made it appear that one sort of men (the brethren) had not Received all the Power of the keys Formally. The Replyer returneth, Truly this is to Discover the Contradiction the more. For if the Power of the keys be Delivered to Believers as such, than the Power of administering the Sacraments is Given to them: for that is a Part of the Power of the keys.  
Ans. It is wearisome to repeat so often the same Answer; yet let me say it once more, and leave it; He that saith, Believers Receive all the Power of the keys as professed Believers, He saith all of them have Received the Power, and they only, and such as Receive their Power from them. And this is the force of quatews Tale; That whosoever Receive any thing as such, all such do Receive it, & none but such as Derive it from them.  
But saith the Replyer, In the Way, he giveth the greater part of Church power to the Body of the Church (pag. 45.) to wit, to ordain, and in some cases) to excommunicate all their Church Officers: which are the highest Acts of Rule (as else where he speaketh:) Therefore he may not Deny them the lesser, which is to Administer the Sacraments.  
Ans. The answer is ready at hand, and was ready at his hand (in Part 2: of the congregational way cleared pag. 29.) where I Distinguish Potestas into officiariam and honorariam. Excommunication by the Brethren is the highest Act of Honoraria Potestas: but not of Officiaria Potestas. To Preach the word with Authority, and to Administer the seals of it, are acts of the highest office-Power in the Church. Popish Divines would take it very ill, if any Act of Church Power were said to be higher than Conficere corpus Domini. But excommunication largely taken is an Act of a Power proper to a Community. Any community hath power ex Natura rei, to Receive into their Communion, & to cast not of their Communion. Every sound Body hath a power to cast out his own superfluous humours, and to cut off his own Putrid members: As for ordination, though we look at it (with Dr Ames) as Adjunctum consummans of the people's Election, and vocation of their Officers (and therefore not utterly Excentrical from the people's power;) yet our Churches do not Practise it ordinarily, where they have Elders of their own, or can Procure other Elders to join with them.  
As for that last words in the Scheme of the first Contradiction, I know not whether the Replyer put any weight, or stress, in that, in the first column, the keys are said to be given (to wit, partly) to Believers, and in the same column again to the Fraternity, with the Presbytery, in the second column to professed Believers, In the third to Believers publicly Professing their Faith: And (in Mr Hooker's judgement) Not to Believers as Believers, but as Believers Covenanting.  
But if it be requisite to say any thing to this, I would say. 1. That the Fraternity, and professed Believers, and Believers publicly Professing their Faith, are all one. And the common Name of Believers is often put for all the rest, They that were Added to the Church (Acts 2. 47: and 41:) are called by the common name of Believers Acts 2. 44. and 4. 32. when Mr Hooker saith the Power is not Given to Believers as Believers, but as Believers Covenanting, He meaneth the same that I do, by professed Believers.  
As for women (whom the Replyer cast in our way before) though they be Believers and so partake in the same common Salvation, as also in the word and seals: yet because of the frailty of their sex, they are expressly exempted by the Apostle from any Act of Power in the Church. 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. and 1 Tim: 2. 11, 12. Yet that Impeacheth not the Generality of the Proposition; That all the Fraternity of Believers have Part in the Power of the keys: That all men once Dye is the general Proposition of the Apostle Heb: 9 27. which is not Impeached by the Translation of Enoch and Elias.  
Having thus cleared the first Answer to this contradiction, Let us weigh next what he saith to the second Answer, which saith he is given to help out the former, for I had said.  
2. If there had been some Difference between the keys and the Way, in some expressions: yet it lay rather in logical terms, then in the Doctrine of Divinity, or Church practice, and such is this, about the first subject of the Power of the keys.  
What saith the Replyer to this? He Returneth a double exception.  
1. Saith He, Had it been only a lesser Difference about a logical Notion (as he minceth it) the Assertor had not Observed it. But a difference (of the highest magnitude) to Contradiction, in Delivering a New way is very Remarkable. How shall we be brought to Agree with them that contradict not only one another, but one man himself.  
Answer 1. It was not any weakness of the first Answer, that needed a second to Help it out, but variety of fit matter for a just Defence produced it: It needed no help, but to clear itself from groundless exceptions.  
Answer 2. The seeming Difference between the way and the keys (if any be in this point) it lieth rather in logical expressions, then in the Doctrine of Divinity, or Church Practise. For what ever the Different judgements of men of our way may be, touching the first subject of the Power of the keys (some Placing it in the Body of the Church, others Dividing it between officers and Brethren:) yet in the Doctrine of Divinity we all Agree with one Accord, that the Church (even the Body of Church-members) have power to choose their officers, to Admit members, and to censure offenders: And that the officers only have Power to Preach the word with office and Authority, and to Administer the Sacraments. And according to this unity of judgement is the uniform practice of our Churches. And therefore let mincing be left to curious cooks to prepare their shred meat for queasy stomachs: or let it be left to such as would make the best of a bad cause: we neither Distrust our Cause to be of God, nor do fear any thing more than that it should be hid, and clouded with prejudices and calumnies from such as know it not, and yet seek the Truth in sincerity. And therefore let the replier be pleased to consider, whether the Difference be indeed any more than in a logical Notion: and whether they be the words not only of an assertor, but of an Avenger, to style it a Difference of the highest magnitude? Surely if there were not some more than common zeal and Indignation in the cause, A Contradiction in logical terms, would not be counted a Difference of the highest magnitude in Divinity: nor would such Difference in words so easy to be reconciled, be blown up to so high an opposition, as a Contradiction.  
2. His second exception is, That Howsoever the first Subject is indeed a logical term, yet the matter Discoursed is doctrinal Divinity: And whatsoever the practice be, It is a Contradiction in Divinity as well as in logic.  
Answer: But I hope it hath appeared, there hath been found no Contradiction at all, neither in logic nor in Divinity, though there have wanted no Industry to search it, nor animosity to charge it. And therefore your Question is easily Answered, How shall we be brought to Agree with them, that Contradict not only one another, but one man himself? For here is yet no Contradiction found of one man to himself, nor any Appearance of Contradiction neither in one man nor other, unless it be only in logical terms, and scarce therein. But If the replier defer his Agreeing with Divines or Churches, in any way of Religion, till he meet with such as neither Contradict themselves, nor one another, He must neither be Protestant nor Puritan (as they have been called) nor of the Presbyterian, nor congregational way.  
What if it be said (in the way, pag: 45.) The brethren of the Church might Proceed (to wit, upon just, and weighty grounds) against all their officers as well as one? yet in such cases our Churches are never wont to proceed, but in the Presence, and with the Consent and approbation of other Churches?  
Why then saith he their Doctrine and practice agree not, which is the greater Blemish.  
How hard is it for a heart leavened with Prejudice to take good things in good part? A free man, sui juris (having his father's consent) might marry a wife (if he would) without his brethren's consent: And for Adultery, he might put her away also without their Consent, And yet he will not do either, without their consent, and Approbaion. Is this man's judgement contrary to his practice, and is it the greater Blemish? what say we to Paul? He Received his gospel, neither of man, nor by man. And he might have Preached it everywhere boldly and confidently, and have called an Anathema upon all such as had gainsaid Him, whether angels or Apostles Gal. 1. 8, 9 yet he chose rather to go up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles about his whole gospel Gal. 2. 1, 2. and that lest he had run in vain, or should run in vain. What then? shall we say Then Paul's Doctrine and practice Agree not, which is the greater Blemish? God forbid. Christian Prudence and Religious care to Prevent offence, will condescend to clear Righteous Proceedings to all judicious and equal minds. And yet neither cross his own judgement of his own Right, nor blemish (but rather Honour) himself by Approving it to others.  
3. I gave a third Answer to the former Charge of Contradictions, which he saith, I Added to succour both the former.  
But the Truth is, they need no succour to Defend themselves against such exceptions: but it is an Honour to truth, to have many witnesses to attend upon it.  
I said it for a third Answer, That it were no just matter of calumny, If in some latter Tractate, I should Retract or express more commodiously, what I wrote in a former less safely: as Augustine &c.  
Whereto he replieth, Truly Sir, It had been no just Calumny so to do, but matter of Honour and Reputation rather. But to write Contradictions, and to take no Notice of them, till observed by others: and then to be so far from Retracting, as to stand upon Justification of them, is nothing like Augustine's practice, and so falleth short of his Reputation.  
Answer: Though Augustine Retracted, what he was convinced of, to be erroneous, or unsafe, yet he did not Retract what every one objected against him, (not only what Faustus, or Petilius or Julian objected, but not so much as what Jerome himself objected,) but justly stood upon his own Defence. Had Vindex his objections been Convictions, Reason, and (I hope) conscience, would not have suffered me to Justify known errors. He doth himself bear me witness, That he hath sometimes heard, I have often changed my opinions. And (I thank God) I take it for no shame to change for the better.  
But to confess I am convinced, when I am not, and to Retract what a Stranger (though a Brother) conceiveth erroneous, to wit, in his judgement, but not in mine own, It were as much as to live by another man's Faith, and not mine own: and with all to cast myself under that Reproach, which the Title of his book implicitly casteth upon me.  
A wavering minded man is unstable in all his ways.  
In the conclusion of his Preface he saith, there are in that Prefatory Epistle to the Way, and in that other to the keys, other Differences observed, between the Author and the Prefacers, but the Author is not pleased to take Notice of them.  
It is too hard perhaps to Reconcile others to himself.  
It is well if he can Reconcile himself to himself.  
Ans. This is the word not of an assertor but of an avenger, (whose heart is hot, Deut. 19 6.) But Though Mr Cawdry know not so much, yet I have taken Notice of those Differences, and have Advertised the Prefacers of the same, whom it concerned. My letters to them are not present at hand with me: If they were I should not think it meet to publish them. In the Preface to the keys, the Prefacers note a Difference between me and them about the prophesying of Private Brethren, concerning which I sent them word, I Discerned no Dissent at all between them and me in that Point, though they had Added a case or two of liberty, more than there they did express.  
Whether it be too hard for me or no to Reconcile others with myself it is enough, that I keep the unity of the Spirit with them in the bond of Peace: and that I have learned Placidè ferre contra Sentientes.  
But howsoever I hope (by the help of Christ) I shall soon Reconcile myself to myself, unless the Replyer can prevail with me so far, as to make me not only to fall out with myself, but to fall off from the Truth too, or else convince me that I have so fallen, and yet even so I hope the Lord will help me rather to Reconcile myself to the Truth, than myself to myself.    

CHAP. 2.  
Touching the second Pretended contradiction, with the 3, 4, 5.  

The second Contradiction which the Replyer chargeth is delineated in the Scheme thus.  
2. The keys are Given to the Church of Believers, The way pag. 1. that is a combination, of faithful. men, as Mr. Hooker. 2. The key of knowledge belongeth to all the faithful, whether joined to any particular Church or no. The keys pag. 11. 2 The key of knowledge is given not only to the Church, but to some before they enter into the Church, Keyes pag. 2.  
Ans. This term the key of knowledge is taken from our Saviour's words, in Luk. 11. 52. Where he Reproveth the Lawyers, who had taken away the key of knowledge, and neither entered in themselves, nor suffered others to enter. The words argue, that the entering in was not into the visible Church: for into that the Lawyers had entered, and were willing to admit others. He speaketh therefore of entering into the state of Grace, and so into the kingdom of Grace and Glory. The solution than is plain and easy, The key of knowledge (or Faith) belongeth to all the faithful, whether joined to any particular Church or no. For by it they enter into the kingdom of Grace and Glory. But if we speak of the keys of a Particular visible Church, they are all given to the Church or Congregation of Believers.   

Touching the third Contradiction.  
The third Contradiction is deciphered thus.  
3. The key of Order is Common to all the members of the Church: keys pag. 8. Then say we, to Women and Children. 3 It is not every place, or Order in the Church, that giveth Power to Receive Ordinances, much less to Dispense them, as Children and Women, Way cleared part. 2. pag. 19  
Ans. 1. It hath been Answered above, that such general Propositions hold true, notwithstanding some known particular exceptions. It is appointed to all men once to die: which is an undoubted Truth, though Enoch and Elias never died.  
Ans. 2. The Children of Church-members are in Order to baptism, but excluded from the Lord's Table. 1 Cor. 11. 28.  
Women have some parts of the key of Order, whereby they have power to walk Orderly themselves, and in a private way to help others to walk Orderly also, Act. 18. 26. Tit. 2. 3, 4, 5.  
Only they have not Power to Admit members, choose Officers, censure Offenders. But if they have any part of the power of the keys, the Proposition is true, yea and it were true also, though they had been kept from all Interest in the Exercise of the keys.   

Touching the fourth Contradiction.  
The fourth Contradiction is thus laid out.  
4. Ordination is a work of Rule. The way, pag. 49. Ordination and Jurisdiction (both Acts of Rule) pertain indifferently to all the Presbyters. ibid. pag. 49. 4. As for Election, & Ordination of Officers these things the brethren may do (if need be) without Officers The way, pag. 45. 101. 4. Ordination is not an Act of Supreme Jurisdiction, but of Order rather, Hooker's Survey part. 2. 75.  
Ans. Ordination, They that make the least of it make it an Act of Prayer, & such Prayer, by which the less is blessed of the greater; as it is in all Prayer which is joined with Imposition of hands; which Argueth, it is an Act of majority of Power: and majority of Power may without a solecism be called, Rule: though not office-Rule, yet Honourable pre-eminence. I nowhere call it an Act of Supreme Jurisdiction which is that Mr Hooker Denies; and seemeth to Deny it, not Positively neither, but comparatively rather. Ordination (saith he) is not an Act of Supreme Jurisdiction, but of Order rather, then there is no contradiction here. Nor will it be found in the other clause, for though Ordination and Jurisdiction be said (in the Way pag, 49.) to pertain indifferently to all the Presbyters: yet that is expressly spoken in opposition to the Lord Bishops, who usurped both into their own hands, as their peculiar prerogative: and though I say, (else where in the Way) that in Election & Ordination of Officers, the Brethren may act (if need be) without Officers: yet the very word of limitation (if need be) Argueth, that in ordinary cases, ordination pertaineth to the Presbyters, as other Acts there mentioned do pertain to the Presbyters, and Brethren met together: but as for Election, I take it to pertain principally to the Brethren.   

Touching the 5th Contradiction.  
The 5th Contradiction followeth in this sort.  
5. 
The key of Authority, or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church, and so the Act of Rule is the proper Act of their office, keys pag. 20.  
The People discerning, and approving the Justice of the censure give consent and Obedience to the will and Rule of Christ, keys pag. 15. 37. 41.  
The People stand in an Order, even an orderly Subjection, according to the Order of the Gospel, pag. 11.  5. 
In case the Officers do err and give offence they shall be governed by the whole Body of the Brethren, The Way, Pag. 100  
The Church exerciseth several Acts of Authority over the Elders, The Way, pag. 101.  
The People have some stork of Power and Authority in the Government of the Church, pag. 36.  
They Rule the Church by Appointing their own officers, ibid. pag. 16.   
Ans. 1. The former column in all the three Places speaketh of Elders walking in the right Administration of their office then in Propriety of speech the Key of Authority and Rule is committed to them 1 Tim. 5. 17. and is there made the proper Act of their office, than it is that the People Discerning the will and judgement of Christ in their judgement, they do give Consent and Obedience to the will of Christ in Censures Advised by them, Then it is also that they walk in orderly subjection to their Elders, Heb. 13. 17.  
But the latter column speaketh of the Power of the Church over the Elders chiefly in case of the Elders maladministration of their office, or misgovernment of themselves. But then the Power which the Church putteth forth, It is not office Power (which is properly Authority:) but Potestas honoraria.  
Answer 2. In column the second when it is said; The People have some stock of Power and Authority in the Government of the Church, Keyes pag. 36. They are the words of an objection, not of mine own Assertion, And though somewhere I speak of Acts of Authority over the Elders, I do clearly explain myself in the keys (pag. 36.) That Authority is taken in a large sense, and after a sort, when it is Acknowledged, in the People over the Elders, As  
1. When a man acteth according to his own will freely, he is then said to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Dominus sui Actus, so the People in all the Acts of liberty, which they put forth, they are Domini sui Actus, Lords of their own Actions.  
2. The people by sundry Acts of liberty, (as in Election of officers, in sending forth their messengers, in concurrence with their Elders, in the Admission of members, and censure of Offenders, in the Determination and Promulgation of synodal Acts) They have a great stroke and Power in the Ordering of Church affairs: which may be called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or Potestas, a Power which many times (in Common speech) goeth under the Name of Rule or Authority. But in proper speech, It is indeed a privilege, or liberty, an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or Power rather than Authority. It is a common speech usual amongst our best Divines, That the Government of the Church is mixed of a Monarchy, an Aristocracy, and a Democracy. In regard of Christ the Head, the Government of the Church is sovereign and monarchical. In regard of the Rule by the Presbytery it is Stewardly and aristocratical: In Regard of the people's Power in Elections, and censures, It is democratical.    

Chap. 3.  
Touching the sixth Contradiction.  

The sixth Contradiction is thus Presented.  
6. 
Examination is one of the highest Acts of Rule: and therefore cannot be performed, but by some Rulers. keys pag. 16.  
The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbytery, because they have not received from Christ an office of Rule without their officers, ibid.  
No Act of the people's power doth properly bind unless the Authority of the Presbytery join with it. Ibid. pag. 36.  6. 
If all their officers were found Culpable either in heretical Doctrine, Or in scandalous Crimes, the Church hath lawful Authority to proceed against them all. The Way, pag. 45.  
In case of offence given by an Elder, or the whole Eldership together, the Church hath Authority to require satisfaction, and if they give it not, to Proceed to Censure Ibid. page 101.  6. 
Excommunication is not an Act of the Power of office, but of judgement, Nor an Act of highest Rule but of supreme judgement seated in the Fraternity. Surv. part. 3. pag. 45.  
As a Church of Brethren can not proceed to any public Censure without the Elders so nor the Elders without concurrence of the People, Preface to the keys pag. 4.   
Answer 1. Here is indeed a Discrepance in Expressions between the Way, and the keys. But it was not my Act, that any such Discrepance should have been extant. The truth is, That many years ago, (and some years before the suppressing of the Bishops in England) I was seriously moved by some of our Brethren, and fellow Elders here, to Draw up an historical Narration of our churchway together with some familiar grounds of the same briefly. In short time as God Helped, I dispatched it, which when our brethren had perused, I saw they did not close with it. Yet a Brother going for England, got somewhere a Copy of it, and Presented it to some of the congregational way there: and I afterwards heard, that neither did they close with it: and in particular not with that Passage, which is here recited, as a part of the Contradiction. Which since appeareth more openly, by the Asterisk put upon that Passage, and upon sundry other in the Book: But before I saw that, and had only heard, That they did not fully Accord, I hoped it had met with a timely suppression, rather than an impression: for I heard no more of it, for two, or three years after: mean while perceiving That one main Point of Dissatisfaction, was the Authority given to the Fraternity, I considered more seriously and Distinctly, of the whole Power of the keys, and expressed my Apprehensions in that Treatise of the keys, which our brethren here did well Accept, and so did the brethren (of like judgement) in England, and some of them were pleased to Attest it with the Preface which is now extant before it: yea I have heard (as well as some other of our Brethren here) by some letters from England, that Reverend Mr Rutherford (who was a great Part of the Assembly at Westminster) offered to the Dissenting brethren, That if they would come up to the Treatise of the keys, themselves would meet them there. But this was sundry years, after the Treatise of the way had been finished, and carried to England, and (as I hoped) suppressed. But it seemeth some Brother there, having got a Copy of it, being zealous of the Authority of the Fraternity, and Perceiving that their Authority was not so fully Acknowledged in the keys as in the Way; He caused his Copy of the Way (which was indeed abrupt in the entrance, and imperfect otherwise) to be Published in Print: which when I saw, It troubled me not a little, as knowing, That the Discrepant Expressions in the one, and in the other, might trouble friends, and give Advantage to Adversaries. Afterwards Mr Hooker coming down from Connectiquol, to consult with the Elders here about his Book; He pleaded seriously for the Placing of all Church power, primitively, in the Body of the Church, and also for their Judiciary Power of Censure over the Presbytery, suitable to what I had delivered in the Way; Now, though I cannot say, that his Reasons did prevail with me, to lter the Placing of the First Subject of the Power of the keys, from what I had delivered in the Treatise of the keys: yet Perceiving that some men's judgements did more Adhere as to his judgement, so to the former course of the Way: others to that of the keys, I suffered both to stand as they did, especially seeing I could not help it, the Book of the Way being published without my Consent; and both the Way, and the keys being dispersed into many hands (past my Revoking) and Refuted by some; So that if the Replyer find some Discrepancy in one of these books from the other, Let him know that the Doctrine of the Way (in such few Points wherein it differeth from the keys) was not then mine when the keys were published, much less when the Way was published, which was many years after, though it had been penned many years before. And yet take all the Discrepancyes, and weigh them (I will not say with Candour but with Rigour) and I do not yet remember, nor can I yet find any of them, but they lie rather in Difference of logical Notion, then in Doctrine of Divinity, or Church practice, as I said before.  
Answer 2. This further; let me Acquaint both the replier, and the Reader withal, that sometimes there hath grown a Question, amongst us whether all Excommunication be an Act of Officiaria Potestas, or not some Honoraria only? If of Officiaria, It cannot be Dispensed by the Brethren only, as the first column hath it. If of Honoraria, It may, and so the second column hath it: and then the Contradiction is not ejusdem.  
Neither is this Censure dispensed by the brethren (as I conceive) one of the highest Acts of Rule (which is to deliver unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5.) but Reacheth only to cast their Elders, out of Administration of office to them, and out of Church Communion with them. The Truth is, Ego libenter in eorum me numero esse Profiteor, qui proficiendo Scribunt, & Scribendo proficiunt; which gave me occasion to add the third Answer given above to the first Contradiction, Some things in the way which I delivered more laxly, I express more distinctly in the Treatise of the keys which followed after: and some things more fully and clearly, in the way cleared, then in either of the former.  
Answer 3. When I say No Act of the people's part, doth properly bind, unless the Authority of the Elder join with it (keys pag. 36.) I would be understood to speak it as I meant it, of the Elders walking without offence; in the Right Administration of their office, and Conversation of their lives.  
Answer 4. When Mr Hooker saith. Excommunication is not an Act of Office, Power, nor of Rule, but of supreme judgement seated in the Fraternity, I easily grant that the Excommunication dispensed by the Fraternity is not an Act of Office-Power; But it may Justly be Inquired, whether Excommunication, being Dispensed by the Elders with the consent of the Church, be not an Act, as of the Churches honourable judicial Power, so of the Elders Office-Power, and Rule in the Church? For as the pastoral Preaching of the Elders is official, and so Authoritative, though the Preaching of other Brethren (as of the sons of the Prophets) be not so: so why may there not be the like Difference, observed here? To deliver unto Satan seemeth to be an Act of judicial Office-Power, as when in another case it is said, The Judge delivereth a man to the Officer, and the officer casteth him into Prison Matth. 5. 25. He that casteth into Prison is an inferior officer. The Judge must therefore be a superior officer, that delivereth an offendor to the officer, to be cast into Prison. In the Excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian (where both the Elders and Brethren concurred) the sentence might well be delivered in terms that express an Act of highest Authority, To deliver unto Satan. But where the Church is called to Act against their Elders (who corrupt them with false Doctrine) there the Apostle Requireth the Church, to mark them, and avoid them, Rom. 16. 17, 18. which may express an Act of liberty, and judicial Power, but not of Authority.    

CHAP. 4.  
Touching the seventh, Contradiction and eighth.  

The seventh Contradiction is thus gathered.  
7. It was a Sacrilegious Breach of Order, That Commissaries and chancellors wanting the Key of Order (no Ministers) have been invested with Jurisdiction. Yea and more than ministerial Authority, above those Elders, who labour in word and Doctrine. The keys pag. 16. 7. There is a Key of Power given to the Church (with the Elders) as to open a door of entrance to the Ministers calling, so to shut the door of entrance against them in some cases &c. The keys p. 9 Yea to Censure all their Elders (without Elders) The Way p. 45. as before.  
Ans. The power given to the Commissaries Chancellors &: I justly called a Sacrlegious Breach of Order in more Respects than one.  
1. In that being no Ministers, they exercised more than ministerial Authority over the Elders. For Ministers do not exercise Authority over Elders, no nor over any Brother, but with consent of the Church. But these do it without, and against the Consent of the Church.  
2. In that they exercise this Authority even in Churches wherein they have not Received the key of Order, and so stand not so much as in the Order of Members amngst them.  
3. In that they proceed against them, not for crimes committed against the word of God, but for Neglect of Popish-Canons or human Traditions.  
But now no Authority allowed to Brethren either in the keys or in the Way, cometh near to this Breach of Order.  
For 1. In joining with the Elders to open a door of entrance to Minister's calling, They put forth no Act of Authority (properly so called) at all: but only exercise a liberty and Power orderly which they have Received from the Lord Jesus, to elect their own officers, As the people's election of Deacons (Act. 6. 2. to 5th.) And their lifting up of hands in the choice of Elders (Act. 14. 23.) doth declare. And when they do shut them forth it is not without their Elders, where their Elders are not wanting, or not wanting to their Duty. And even then, they put forth no Act of Office Rule, or Authority (properly so called) as the Commissaries do, but only an Act of judicial Power common to the whole Church, 1 Cor. 5. 12.  
2. The People do exercise this Power only in their own Church where themselves are members, and have Received a key of Order.  
3. They proceed not against any, much less against their Elders, but for notorious offences, committed against the word of God, in Doctrine or life, so that this Contradiction speaketh as little ad idem as any of the former.   

Touching the 8th Contradiction.  
The 8th Contradiction is represented thus.  
8. We are so far from Allowing that Sacrilegious usurpation of the Ministers office, That private Christians ordinarily take upon them to Preach the gospel publicly, The keys, pag 6. 8. This is ordinarily Practised in England, and Allowed by the independent Brethren. Yea they being but in the Notion of Gifted Brethren, no Ministers to other Congregations, do it ordinarily themselves.  
Ans. 1. This Contradiction is not of me to my self, but of some others, who whether they be independents truly so called, I do not know: sure I am, that Presbyterians and independents are not membra Dividentia, though I see, that all that are not for Popery, or Episcopacy, or Presbytery, do commonly lurk under the style of independency. I hope the Replyer would be loath to Renounce the Protestant Religion, because there are found some contradictions, and greater than these, in one of them to another.  
Ans. 2. When I call it a Sacrilegious usurpation for Private Christians Ordinarily to take upon them to Preach the gospel publicly, & to Administer the Sacraments; yet this latter of administering the Sacraments the Replyer leaveth out, and so the Contradictiction is not ad idem: which is a Common failing in this, and the rest. For I would not say that it is a Sacrilegious usurpation, for well gifted Brethren (where ordained Ministers cannot be had) there to Preach ordinarily and publicly, especially if they be Approved by those that have Power, and requested thereto by the People, wherein I go further in giving way to the prophesying of Private Brethren, than my Reverend Brethren (the Prefacers to the keys) do, who only Allow them to Preach occasionally, and not ordinarily, which I speak only to this end, That the Replyer and others may know, there is more consent and Agreement in our judgements, than they take notice of, or sometimes ourselves either. But if Private Brethren do Administer the Sacraments at all whether ordinarily, or Occasionally, It seemeth to me like the Fact of Uzziah in offering Incense.    

CHAP. 5.  
Touching the 9th Contradiction.  

The 9th Contradiction is laid out thus.  
9 A Particular Church of Saints Professing the Faith (that is members without offices) is the first subject of all the Church. Offices, with all their spiritual Gifts & Power, Keyes pag. 31. 9 As the keys of the kingdom of Heaven are divers, so are the Subjects to whom they are committed diverse, keys pag. 11. The Apostles were the first subject of apostolical power. ibid. pag. 32. A Synod is the first Subject of that Power whereby error is convinced, and condemned. ibid. pag. 47. 9 The Power of the keys belongeth firstly to a Congregation of Covenanting Believers, Surv. part. ●. p. 219. The Power of the keys is in the Church of Believers, as in the first subject. ib. p. 195 That conceit is wide to make one first subject of this power, & yet others to share in this power, not by means of that, for this is to speak daggers, and Contradictions. ibid.  
Ans: 1. This is one of those Differences, of which I spoke before, that lieth rather in logical Notion, than either in Doctrine of Divinity, or in Church practice. Against which the exception made above, hath been Answered above, in clearing the first Contradiction.  
Ans. 2. There is no colour of Contradiction between the two former columns. For when I say A Particular Church is the first Subject of all the Church Officers and their Gifts, I speak not of this or that particular Church, (which is but an individual) but of a Particular Church taken Indefinitely, which (by mere error of the Printer) is without sense said, taken Independently, which is the Disadvantage of us, who live so far remote from the press, that we can neither prevent their mistakes nor correct them afterwards. But take a Particular Church Indefinitely & it comprehendeth all Particular Churches: And that God hath given to Particular Churches all spiritual officers together with their Gifts, for the Discharge of their offices, is Proved by evident Texts of Scripture, in that very Page of the keys 31. I do not say (as some do) that the Church meaning the Fraternity is the first subject of all spiritual Gifts (for then they had received them immediately without officers:) but I say the offices and Officers, not devoid of Gifts, but furnished with their gifts, are given by Christ to the Church freely, and not to any other Person or Society, from whom the Church Receiveth them.  
But this no whit crosseth, what is said in the second column, That Elders are the first Subjects of ordinary ministerial Power, and Apostles of apostolical Power, and Synods, of synodical Power. A wife may be the first subject of her own Dowry, but yet her Husband is the first Subject Recipient of his wife with her Dowry.  
Ans. 3. As for what is said differently by my Brother Hooker in the third column, as his Person and Gifts and Friendship were precious and dear to me whilst he lived: so now that he resteth in Glory, his Name and memory, and labour (saving some very few private Notions) are honourable, and blessed, with me, and I suppose with all that knew him. But in this logical Notion, I crave leave, not so much to dissent from him (for he herein Dissented from me, who wrote first, rather than I from him) but leave I crave not to Retract what I formerly wrote in the keys touching this Point, though I should as much suspect mine own judgement, where he Dissenteth from me, as where any man. It is true he taketh the Church of Covenanted Believers to be the first Subject of the power of the keys, which if he mean no more, than that they have all Church-Power either formaliter, or Radicaliter, and Virtualiter, then there is no Difference in our expressions; but if he mean that that they are the first Subject of all church-power properly, two or three things detain me from consenting with him herein. 1. That which is the first Subject of any power Receiveth it immediately without any other Intervening Subject. As fire being the first Subject of heat, Receiveth not his heat from any former Subject. But it is evident, That many a Church of Believers, hath not Received pastoral Gifts, nor it may be any Gifts fit for office, till they fetch them from other Churches, and sometimes from some who are not members of any Particular Church at all.  
2. The first Subject of any Power, as it hath immediately Received it: so it may immediately exercise it: as Fire (the first subject of heat) can heat without Intervention of any other subject.  
But the Church hath not Power immediately to exercise pastoral Preaching, or Administration of the Sacraments, till it have procured and chosen, and called forth some or other Gifted Persons to exercise the same.  
3. I might add a third Reason to both the former. Whatsoever is properly the first Subject of any Power, It hath that same Power, or some other equivalent, and analogical to it, not only radicaliter and virtualiter, but Formaliter also. And because formaliter, therefore radicaliter and virtualiter. For whatsoever is in any Subject Firstly, (whether it be proper Adjunct, or proper effect, or any other proper Argument) it either floweth from the form, or from the matter so formed; As for instance, capacity of Learning, or Risibility is in Man, as in the first subject. The former floweth from the Reasonable soul: the latter from the matter of a man so formed. But neither of these are in man radicaliter or virtualiter, but only because they are in a man formally, and so either flow from the form, or from the matter so formed. Take another Instance, and of another sort. The People that have power to elect a King, though they have not formally kingly power, yet have they a formal Power, to submit themselves to Kingly Power. And so having a formal Power to put one of the Relatives, they have an equivalent and analogical Power to put the other Correlative. For, Posito uno Relatorum, Ponitur etiam & alterum.  
As for that which is quoted by the Replyer from Mr Hooker, in the last clause of the third column of this contradiction, I see not how it concerneth me, or contradicteth any thing in the former columns. For I do not make any first Subject of Church-Power, and yet others to share in that Power, but not by means of that. But as the keys of the kingdom of heaven are diverse: So I see no Inconvenience, that the first Subjects to whom the several keys are committed, may be diverse also. Neither doth the letter of the Text seem to me to gainsay that, Mat. 16. 18. For though it speak, not to Them but to Thee; a Representing one state or Condition of men: yet say that one condition to be believers and take Believers in a large sense, It comprehendeth all sorts of Professing Believers, whether Private members, or Elders, or Apostles, indeed all. But neither do I see any convincing reason seeing Peter stood in a threefold ecclesiastical Relation (being both an Apostle, and an Elder, & a professed Believer) why Christ committing the keys to him (saying to Thee will I give them) might not Intend to give all the keys; and the several sorts of them, according to the several Relations he stood in.  
If it be said All that share in the subject to whom the keys are Given (in these words, To Thee) they all share alike in the same equal Power of the keys, because they have all the same Commission: I Answer it would indeed so follow, If there were no other several Commissions, granted in Scripture else where, but only here; But clear it is from other Scriptures, That Power of Authoritative Preaching, and Administering the Sacraments, is Given only to Apostles, Elders, and such like officers: but Power of privilege and judgement, is given all the Fraternity.    

CHAP. 6.  
Touching the 10th Contradiction with the 11th 12th 13th.  

The 10th Contradiction is thus held forth.  
10. pastor and flock are Relates: and so he is a pastor to none but his own Congregation. This is the Common Tenent. 10. The members of any Church we Adm●t t● the Lord's Table (if they bring letters testimonial.) and their Children to baptism. The Way p. 68 The keys, p. 17. 10. Administration of Sacraments is a ministerial Act: and what Authority hath a pastor to do it, or they to Receive it from him to whom he is no pastor? Mr. Hocker Surv. Part. 2. 64, 65. pastors and Teachers might Pray and Preach in other Churches besides their own: but not Administer seals and Censures. Bartlet's model pag. 63.  
Answer 1. That Appearance of Contradiction is easily Removed, if our Doctrine and practice be known, as it is, what a pastor doth in his own Congregation, and to his own Flock, he doth it by pastoral Power, and Authority, what he doth to the members of other Churches, abroad, or out of his own Congregation, He doth it not authoritatiuè, but Precariò, and not in a constant, but in a transient way: which the communion of Churches doth not only Admit, but readily (as occasion serveth) Desire. What Mr Hooker doubted of in this Point, he Answereth himself in the end of the same Pag. 65.  
If Paul, Apollo's, and Cephas, things present and things to come, be all Given to the Particular Church of Corinth (1 Cor. 3. 22.) who yet had no peculiar Interest in them more than other Churches. By the same Right all the officers, and all their Gifts are theirs also, in the same way. Theirs they are not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, (for each Church hath his peculiar offices, as their own propriety): Then they are theirs {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, for their use, not Authoritatively, nor Ordinarily, but occasionally, as God giveth opportunity; Ordinarily as the Officers must attend to their own Flock, so must the Flock Depend upon their own Officers. The officers have no Authority over any Flock, but that which the Holy Ghost hath committed to them: Neither can any other Flock command the employment of any of their Gifts, or any act of their office amongst them. But upon occasion, in a transient way, as they may have need of their Gifts, so they may have need of some Act of their Office, and accordingly may Desire it, and Receive it.   

The 11th Contradiction which is thus set forth.  
11. 
We Receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (say the same of' baptism) as a se●le of Communion, not only with the Lord Jesus in our own Churches but in all the Churches of the Saints, keys pag. 17. Del. of 9 Posit pag. 133, 134.  11. 
baptism (and so the other Sacrament) sealeth up the external Communion with a Particular Church &c. Mr H. Surv. Part. 3. pag. 27.  
And he disputes against it, as to the Catholic Church.   
Answer: When we say, that the Sacraments are seals of Communion with the Lord Jesus not only in our own Church, but in all the Churches of the Saints, we do not mean that they seal up the same measure of external Communion with other Churches, as with our own. They do not seal up this Communion, That their officers are our officers, and we their Flock: Or that we have the same Power over them, which we have over our own members. This were to seal up not a Communion but a Confusion of Churches; And this is that which Mr Hooker in the place alleged doth deny as ourselves also do.   

The 12th Contradiction is thus declared.  
12. It is an Act of the Elders Power and Authority to Examine whether Officers, or members, before they be Received of the Church, Keyes pag 21. 12. As for Admission, Election, Ordination of Officers, Admission or shutting out of Members, these things the Brethren may do without officers, The Way p. 45. 101  
Answer: The Answer is Obvious, what the Elders do in this kind, Ex Officio, The Church may do the like in the want of Elders.   

The 13th Contradiction is set before us thus.  
13. Ordination is then complete when the People hath Chosen an Officer, and the Presbytery hath laid their Hands on him, Keyes p. 37. 13. But if the Church want a Presbytery, for want of Elders they want a warrant to repair to the Presbytery of another Church to Impose hands upon their Elect Elders, Way, p. 50.  
Answer: In that Place of the keys, I only Assert and Prove, That a man of Sufficient Gifts chosen by the People of the Church, and Ordained by the Presbytery of his own Church, wanteth nothing to the complete Integrity of his calling. The Right hand of Fellowship given by the Elders of other Churches expresseth their Approbation of his calling, but addeth nothing to the essence, or Integrity of his calling.  
But when I say that in want of a Presbytery of their own, they want a warrant to repair to the Presbytery of another Church for his Ordination, I nowhere say, That the Officer Elected, wanteth the complete Integrity of his calling, for want of the Imposition of hand, of the Presbytery of another Church. And yet that had been requisite to make up a pretence of a Contradiction. The Replyer knoweth that a Church wanting a Presbytery of their own to lay hands upon an Elect Officer in our judgement, they may appoint some of the Elders and graver Members of their own Body, to supply the Defect of their own Presbytery; which we Account sufficient to the completing of his calling in such a case.  
But when I said (in the Way) That the Church wanting a Presbytery, they wanted a warrant to repair to the Presbytery of another Church to Impose hands upon their Elect Elders, I meant in way of Subordination to an extrinsical Power. For it is against that which both the Reasons Plead, which I there alleged for that Purpose. But I nowhere dislike, That a Church wanting a Presbytery of their own may send for Elders of other Churches, to Assist them, and to join with them in the Ordination of their Elect Officers.    

CHAP. 7.  
Touching the 14th Contradiction with 15. and 16.  

The 14th Contradiction is thus laid out.  
14. Paul and Barnabas were Ordained to that Office (of Apostleship) by the Imposition of hands of some officers or Members of the Church, Way, p. 45. 14. In Act. 13. 2, 3. There is no Ordination to Office at all: for the Apostles had their office before Mr. Hooker, Surv. Part. 2. p. 83. This was not to put a new office upon them, but to confirm their sending to the Gentiles ib. p. 60. 14. This was done in a Particular Church keys, p. 29. The officers of one Church did what was done in an ordinary Way, Surv. Parr. 2. p. 83. Then it followeth (by Mr. C.) his Doctrine that the Apostles who were officers in all Churches were ordained in a Particular Church: or that officers of a Church may be ordained in another Church: which he said was unwarrantable.  
Ans. 1. When I say (in the Way) That Paul and Barnabas, were ordained to the Apostolic office by Imposition of hands of some officers of the Church at Antioch (Act. 13. 1, 2, 3.) It is not Disproved (by Mr Hooker) saying that they had had their office before. For I no where say, That ordination Giveth the office, but only Approveth it and solemnly, (as it were) Installeth the elect officer into it, and sendeth him forth with a Blessing into the Administration of it. Neither when he saith, That there is there no Ordination unto office at all, doth he contradict what I affirm, For his meaning is, to Deny it in Mr Rutherford's sense, who speaketh there of Ordination, as Giving the calling unto the office: which Mr Hooker Disproveth, and therein I concur with him. For it puts no New office upon them, but Bare witness to that calling, which the Holy Ghost had given them.  
When Mr Hooker saith, The Officers of one Church did what was done in an ordinary way, He himself inferreth the consequence, Therefore it is no Precedent for the Pastors of many Churches, what either they may or should do.  
But the Inferences which Mr Cawdry gathereth, as from my Doctrine out of that Text, either will not hold, or not hurt our cause. For this Inference will not hold, That then the Officers of one church may be ordained in another.  
For they were as much Officers of the Church of Antioch, as of any other Churches, It will only infer, That they who are officers in many Churches, may be Ordained in any one of them.  
The other inference will in part follow That some of the Apostles (who were Officers in all Churches) may be Ordained in a Particular Church, when the Holy Ghost calleth for it. For they Act now not in their own Name, or Power, but in the great Name, and sovereign Power of the Lord Jesus, who is the Head of all churchs.  
But what Prejudice is that to our cause? or wherein doth it contradict any of our tenants?   

The 15th Contradiction is thus Declared.  
15. What if the whole Presbytery offend? The readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod, the keys pag. 43. 15. There is a readier and nearer way; The Brethren may censure them all, Way pag. 45. If the Congregation be found faithful and willing to Remove an offence by due censure, why should the offence be called up to a more public Judicature. keys pag. 42.  
Ans. This Contradiction is made partly out of the concealment of Part of my words in the first column, and Partly out of the Addition of some words of his own in the second column. In the former column I say, If the whole Presbytery offend, or such a Part as will draw a Party, and a Faction in the Church with them, the readiest course than is, to bring the matter to a Synod where those words, such a Part as will draw a Party, or Faction in the Church with them, are given for the just Reason, why in such a case, the case of the offending Presbytery, or other such Leading members in the Church should be brought to a Synod, before it be censured in the Church. But in the words recited in the latter column, I speak of the Congregation as Agreeing together, and both faithful and willing to Proceed against heretical Doctrine and Scandalous crimes in whomsoever. And then they need not Trouble the Synod to clear the case, which is already clear unto themselves, so that this Contradiction speaketh not ad Idem. The one column speaketh of a Church, Divided into parts and Factions, and their readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod. The second column speaketh of a Church both faithful and willing to proceed against offences with one accord. And then they have sufficient Power within themselves, to judge that which is right, and to execute their judgement. That which is Added of the repliers own words, in the latter column, doth help not a little to make up an Appearance of the Contradiction. In the keys I had said (In the case above mentioned) It is the readiest course to bring the matter to the Synod. In the Way he quoteth my words, as if I had said, There is a readier and nearer way. The Brethren may censure them all. If these words had been mine, there had been an Appearance of Contradiction.  
To say this is the readyest course, and yet to say, a Discrepant course is a readier and nearer way, is (at least, verbo tenus) an apparent Contradiction. But the Truth is, Those words are none of mine, but the repliers own. And so it will be an easy matter to make up Contradictions (tot quot) if we may take leave, in one sentence to conceal Part of the words necessary to make up the sense, and in another sentence to add words of our own.   

The 16th Contradiction is delivered thus.  
16. It belongeth to the civil Magistrate, to establish pure Religion, in Doctrine, worship and Government: partly by civil Punishment upon the wilful oppressors, and Disturbers of the same. keys p. 50. 16. Yet the Brethren here call for, or Tolerate Toleration of all Opinions, and Deny the magistrate Power to Punish any Pretending conscience Bartlet's Model, pag. 128. 16. See Mr. Bartlet's model p. 25. Contrà  
Ans. 1. This Contradiction laboureth of the same Disease (as the rest generally do) It speaketh not ad Idem. Such as require the Magistrate to establish Pure Religion, in Doctrine, worship and Government, and to restrain the wilful opposers and Disturbers thereof by civil Punishments, They speak of Fundamentals in Religion, and such opinions as apparently tend to libertinism, and licentious ungodliness, as Mr Bartlet expresseth it, model pag. 126.  
But the Toleration which they Allow and call for, is of such opinions, as neither subvert the Foundation of Religion, nor Practise of Piety. Both these may be maintained without the least show of the face of Contradiction. Further I find this in Mr Bartlet, That himself and some others are not free, That heretics should be put to Death, in case they keep their errors to themselves, and do not seek to seduce, and corrupt others. And though I grant, that such an heretic after once or twice Admonition may be Rejected out of the Church (according to Titus 3. 10, 11.) yet I do not find, that Moses condemned them unto Death, unless they became blasphemers, or Idolators, or Seducers to Idolatry. What Christ, and Moses do both of them Tolerate, the Servants of Christ need not to be ashamed of such Toleration.  
Ans. 2. This Contradiction (for aught I can discern) laboureth also Crimine falsi. For it seemeth a manifest untruth, what he speaketh in column 2. That the Brethren call for, or Tolerate Toleration of all opinions, and Deny the magistrate Power to punish any Pretending conscience, Mr Bartlet alleged for the proof hereof, p. 128. saith no such thing, And the contrary he proveth, from the express Testimony of Mr Burroughs, Mr Thomas Goodwin, & others of that way.    

The 8th Chapt.  
Touching the 17th Contradiction with 18. 19  

The 17th Contradiction is thus set forth.  
17. Visible Saints though they be Hypocrites inwardly, are the matter of a visible church. Mr. Hook. part. 1. p. 14. 15. 17. You say Saints in outward Profession are the matter of a congregational Church: we judge that real Saints uttering in Discourse the Breathings of the Holy Spirit, and experiences of conversion, interested in a stricter conversation to be the matter. Dr. Holmes Epistle to Way cleared. pag. 4. Mr. Bartlet speaketh something (this language) Can there be Ability for spiritual & holy services, where the spirit is not yet given? Can there be communion between light and darkness? Can they edify one another in the Faith, that have not the work of Faith wrought in them? model. p. 57 See more pag. 103.  
Ans. What Mr Hooker's judgement was, is expressed in that first column: what mine own, is declared, and I hope, cleared in the holiness of Church-members. What Dr Holmes and Mr Bartlet do further require in it, they Declare what Church-members ought to be de jure, especially in their first constitution, rather than what they are, or are wont to be de facto, especially in their Declension. Again I see Mr Bartlet speaketh in opposition to the members of the Parish Churches, who are in many places Ignorant, loose, profane and scandalous livers, who are not indeed visible Saints, pag. 56.  
It is true there is some work of the Spirit, where ever there is a visible Saint. But the Spirit giveth many Gifts to the edification of others (as to Judas and Demas) which often do not reach to the Regeneration of him that Receiveth them.   

The 18th Contradiction is thus stated.  
18. The form of the visible Church is the Covenant, either explicit, or implicit: and the latter is sometimes fully sufficient Mr. H. Surv. part. 1. pag. 47. 48 and others. 18. You say an implicit uniting, viz. A walking and communicating with you is a sufficient evidencing of the form: we say, Their folemne confession of their faith & express open covenanting with the Lord to wake with such a body of Saints, in all the ways of Christ to be the manifest form. D. Holmes ibid. 18. It is not general Profession will serve the turn, but there must be a peculiar engagement and appropriation to this or that particular body, Mr. H. Surv. pag 63. Yet he said An implicit Covenant was sufficient.  
Ans. The expressions of Mr H. quoted in column 1: and column 3: will not amount to an opposition of himself, much less to a Contradiction. For though he make an implicit Covenant sufficient, yet a general Profession will not serve the turn; to make an implicit Covenant. For an implicit Covenant must be with Reference to this or that particular Body: or else it is neither Covenant at all, nor implicit. A general Profession entreth not any man into any Relation with any Church, unless he offer himself to join with them as Mr Hooker in that Place more largely, & truly openeth himself. Neither doth Dr Holms his expression contradict him. For he that maketh the explicit Covenant the manifest form of the Church, He doth not gainsay the implicit covenant to be a real form of the Church, though not so manifest but more obscure.   

The 19th Contradiction is thus delineated.  
19 
We crave leave of the author of the keys, To Declare that we Assent not to all expressions, or all and every Assertion in it: As in these Particulars. About the Prothesying of Private Brethren.  
2. That the Assembly (Act. 15.) was a formal Syned.  
3. That the Apostles Acted in it, as Ordinary Elders, Preface to keys. pag. 6.  19 
We do in this Epistle certify our Assent to the way of the Churches of New England. saving that we do not fully close with some expressions passim in the Bock: before some of which (10 at least, belike there are more) we minded to Note a star in the Margin. This we could not but say and do (pace Authoris) or we could not Assent, Epistle to the Way pag. 2.  19 
Yet they are angry that we call for a fuller Declaration of themselves, Epistle to the Way. p. 1. and Epistle to the Way cleared pag. 2.   
Answer: 1. Though my reverend Brethren crave leave to dissent from me in some expressions (which they may safely and freely do without my leave, for I profess my spirit subject to the Prophets:) yet about the prophesying of private Brethren, I must again profess as I did before, That I do not know, wherein I Dissent from them: unless it be that I Allow somewhat more liberty to the prophesying of private Brethren, than they do. The Allowance, which they give is with four limitations.  
1. That is be done occasionally, and not in ordinary course.  
2. By men of such Abilities, as are fit for office.  
3. Not assuming this to themselves, but as they are allowed, and designed to it by such, as have Power.  
4. That their Doctrine be subjected to the Teaching Elders of the Church. Grant these limitations, and I never scrupled (to my remembrance) the liberty of prophesying by private Brethren, yea this liberty I should further grant, that though the private Brethren be not furnished, with abilities fit for public office, yet there may be occasion, to call them forth to exercise their gifts; as in the sudden sickness or absence of the Minister, and other officers, why may not a private brother be called forth by the Church, or stirred up by the Spirit of God in himself to stand up, and with leave, instruct and exhort the Church, to make a sanctified use of such a sudden stroke of Providence? Or what if a private Brother of good credit in the church shall observe the Doctrine of the Ministers not so much uálued as were meet? why may he not take occasion, to speak some words of encouragement, and confirmation, both to the Minister and to the Congregation? Jehosaphat's Nobles, though Princes, yet were but as Private Brethren in the Church, as bearing no public Church-office: yet they taught in the Cities of Juda, what Respect was due to the ministry of the Levites, whom they brought with them, when my beloved Brethren do not acknowledge the Assembly of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren Acts 15. To have been a formal Synod of Messengers sent out of a set and combined Association from neighbour churches, They do not herein Dissent from me. For the two Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem were too far remote to stand in a set, or combined Association, and therefore they may well deny it to be a formal Synod, according to the form of Synods now in use in presbyterial Churches. But that that assembly had the true matter and form of a just Synod, As I do believe it, so I do not see that my Brethren deny it. For the efficient cause of the Synod, the Church of Antioch sent messengers: and the Church of Jerusalem (whose officers were sent unto) they freely gave them a meeting, and the Church with them. For the matter of the Synod, they had the Messengers, officers, and Brethren of both Churches met together in the Name of Christ. It is not necessary to the being of a Synod the convention of the Messengers and members of many Churches, The convention of two Churches (by themselves or messengers) may make a Synod. If the convention of one Church may make a Synagogue, why may not the convention of two churches make a Synod? The form of a Synod they had, in Arguing, and disputing the case in hand, and freely giving in their judgements from scripture grounds, and at length determining the whole cause with the joint consent of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, and Publishing the same by letters, and messengers to all the churches whom it concerned. The establishment of Peace and Truth in the churches, was the end of this Synod, as it ought to be the end of all. It is true, here was a consultation, in that the church of Antioch sent for counsel: and the Apostles and Elders met to consult, and consider of the matter. But consultation was but one Act of the Assembly, many other formal Acts of a Synod they put forth besides, which have been specified. The Apostles though they did put forth some Acts of their apostolical Power, in helping to clear the Truth by explaining obscure Scriptures, and in Ratifying the conclusion with some greater Plerophory of the mind of the Holy Ghost: yet in Putting such things to Argumentation, and Disputation, and allowing Elders and Brethren liberty of Putting in their votes, and determining, and publishing the sentence, in the Name and with the common consent of all, herein they Acted as Ordinary Elders and messengers of churches, might and aught to do.  
The Notes of about Ten Passages in the Way, wherein our Reverend Brethren in England (or some of them) say they could not fully close with them, without Affixing an Asterisk to them, If I knew where, the Pinch of the Difficulty lay, I would address myself, to give them fuller satisfaction either by condescending to them, or giving them just Reason why I could not. Mean while I have learned (through Grace) not to fall out with my Brethren, for greater differences in judgement, than those be.  
That which is added in the third column, that they are offended (and, as you call it, Angry with you) for that you call for a fuller Declaration of themselves, for that, themselves can best give you an Account: for  
1. It may be, they think it needless to Publish further declarations, because over & above the former Declarations, there have been since published three, or four Pithy Pregnant Declarations of the same Argument; as Mr Hooker's surv: Mr Nortons' Answer to Apollonius, the Synod at Cambridge, the Defence of the Answer to the nine Questions.  
2. It may be they fear, If they should publish more declarations in this case, It would add rather more fuel to contention, then prevail with the Spirits of men, contrary minded to Receive satisfaction.    

CHAP. 9  
Touching the 20th Contradiction and 21.  

The 20th Contradiction is thus Expressed.  
20. It is generally asserted by them, that one Church hath not Power to Censure another. 20. A Synod hath Power to Determine, to withdraw Communion from them, if they cannot heal them, keys, pag. 24. 20. The sentence of non Communion denounced against whole Churches Apolog. Narrat. p. 18, 19 If a Sentence denounced it is a Censure.  
Answer: To withdraw Communion from a church, is no more an Act of Power over a church, than it was to join in Communion with them. Communion and non-Communion are Acts of the same power: both of them Acts of privilege or liberty. And if withdrawing Communion be not an Act of censure, then to determine so to withdraw, is no Act of an higher Nature.  
Though a Censure is a sentence denounced, yet every sentence denounced is not a Censure, unless it be Denounced by an higher power, then that of equals. When the Ten Tribes denounced their Rejection of service to David's House (1 Kings 12. 16.) It was not a censure more than theirs, who solemnly Rejected the Rule of Christ: we will not have this man to Rule over us, Luk. 19 14.   

The last Contradiction is declared thus.  
21. 
We Say Instituted worship and Ordinances do not flow immediately from spiritual union, and Relation to Christ, and his members &c. Def. of 9 Pos. pag. 76.  
He must come at them in a right Order, to w●t in Fellowship of the Church Surv. pag. 2.  21. 
Then it followeth, that Hearing the word Preached Singing of psalms and baptism, belong not to any, but such as are members of a Particular Congregation.  
And yet they say Ordinarily hearing it no sign of a Church member, Surv. part. 1. pag. 18.  21. 
A Person hath his first Right to the Sacrament (and so to other Ordinances, because He hath an Interest in the Covenant of the gospel, Surv. part. 1. pag. 65.   
Answer: Here is no semblance of Contradiction; Mr Hooker Surv. saith, a Person hath his first Right to a Sacrament, because he hath an interest in the covenant of the gospel. The defence saith he hath not immediate Right till he be a member of a Particular Congregation. And so saith the Survey too, in the Place alleged. If Immediate Right, and first Right were all one, there were some colour for the Exception: but it is far otherwise; in having Christ, we have a first Right to all things, but not an Immediate Right but in God's way.  
But neither hence will it follow, that Instituted Ordinances; as hearing the word, Singing of psalms, belong to none but to members of a Particular Congregation. For though they be given to such firstly, and Immediately: yet for their sakes to all that come in amongst them. The children's Table and the Provisions thereof is first Allowed to the Children of the Family; yet in a bountiful housekeepers Family, such part of the Pro●●sions may be Allowed to strangers, as they may be fit to partake in.   
FINIS.